Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Incapacity Benefit

Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for monitoring the introduction of incapacity benefit. [32763]

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): A variety of arrangements are in place. They include the collection of statistical information on claims, disallowances, appeals and qualitative assessments of adjudication and the operation of the medical test.

Mr. Rooney: The Minister will appreciate that if the new benefit is to work properly, the quality of medical assessments is vital. Can he give an idea of progress with recruiting medical advisers and their training?

Mr. Burt: So far, 669 sessional doctors have been recruited. It is estimated that the full complement of 800 doctors will be recruited by the end of this month, as well as full-time staff required to evaluate the process. We are well up to date with the recruitment and training of doctors, which builds to some degree on information and work that they previously possessed and undertook. It is clearly vital to keep the benefit under close scrutiny and control. The work has been built up to ensure that that will happen. I will keep a careful eye on matters relating to the medical test.

Mr. Garnier: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion to Minister of State. Can he confirm that people who cannot work and who have been receiving invalidity benefit will continue to receive exactly the same under the new system? How many of the applicants who have been refused incapacity benefit have failed to turn up for interviews?

Mr. Burt: The test's purpose is to focus attention on people who are incapable of work, to make sure that they receive the appropriate benefit, and on those who are unemployed for other reasons, who will also receive the appropriate benefit. We expect that about half the people currently on benefit will be exempt from the new test because of age or the nature of their impairment. Although few cases have come through the system so far, my hon. and learned Friend is right that a number of persons required to attend for the test have not bothered to do so. It is important to keep an eye on that, to make sure that

people are not missing appointments for reasons which should be taken into account. The fact that some persons have not come forward is quite significant.

Mr. Bradley: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his promotion, which I am sure he feels is long overdue. Recently I visited the Manchester medical centre which is taking the lead with the introduction of the medical test. I was impressed by the sensitive way in which the staff at that centre are dealing with the introduction of the test. Of more concern is the number of disability organisations that have contacted me regarding press reports of the apparent hiring of Dr. John Le Cascio, second vice-president of the Unum Corporation, which is a multinational private insurance company. Dr. Cascio's job, at a reputed salary of £40,000 a year, is apparently to help train doctors in the techniques of the new medical test. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case, and that £40,000 is the salary being paid? Will he state Dr. Le Cascio's role and comment on whether he feels that there is any conflict of interest between that duty and being vice-president of a private insurance company?

Mr. Burt: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's initial remarks—and for those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—on my elevation; it is for others to decide whether or not it was overdue—I certainly do not feel that way, but I am none the less grateful.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) appreciated what he saw at first hand in Manchester and the manner in which the test is being conducted. I urge the hon. Gentleman to continue to rely on the evidence of his own eyes, rather than following magazine reports about people who may be employed by the Department to give help and advice.
Off the top of my head, I do not have straightforward answers to all the hon. Gentleman's questions. I undertake, however, to write to supply the information that he requests. I urge him to continue to use his eyes. I am sure that he will find that his experience in Manchester is replicated throughout the country.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I, too, offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his promotion.
Does my hon. Friend agree that having extensively piloted the changes in assessment, and having widely consulted, it is right that we should now have independent assessment to ensure that we arrive at correct assessments on behalf of those who are claiming the benefit?
May I make one suggestion, which arises from constituency cases? There seems to be a feeling that assessment is too short and that there is a failure to listen to questions asked of the doctor. Will my hon. Friend make it clear to those who attend the assessment that a considerable amount of information has been obtained before the assessment is made? Therefore, simple questions often do not need to be asked. Does my hon. Friend agree that the assessments should be perceived as fair if the changes are to be widely accepted?

Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.
At this early stage we are keeping a close eye on the medical tests and the questions asked. I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. It would seem important to give the procedure that we have in place—it has been there for


only two or three months—a chance to work. We shall be evaluating it with the doctors to ascertain how the assessments are going, how long they are taking and how people are responding to them.
My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the test has been extensively trawled. It was well trawled in committee. A panel of 80 independent experts consulted to determine how the test should be put together. There were then two evaluation studies. The test was further refined after that. Real effort has been made to ensure that the test will suit the purpose for which it was designed. It will always be capable of further refinement. My hon. Friend and others will find me open to refinements that will improve the system and assist those who need the benefit.

Child Maintenance

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much child maintenance was paid as a result of assessments by the Child Support Agency, excluding maintenance paid as a result of orders under the liable relative system, in the latest period for which figures are available. [32764]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The amount of maintenance paid direct to the Child Support Agency as a result of assessments by the agency for the period April 1993 to the end of May 1995 was nearly £105 million. In addition, the agency assesses maintenance which is then paid direct between the absent parent and the parent with care. In 1994–95 such assessments amounted to £111 million and from April 1995 to the end of May 1995 the amount paid directly between parents was £21,160,000.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the Minister realise that that figure is well below the forecast target of £525 million and that the CSA has lost the confidence and trust of those involved? About 40 to 50 per cent. of applications are not dealt with properly or are dealt with incorrectly. Is it not time that the Minister did something about that? We heard in January what the Government intended to do, but the reality is that the CSA is falling further and further behind in its work. The impact that it is having on people's lives is dramatic.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman's question relates specifically to comparisons with the liable relative system. Such comparisons are not especially relevant as that system was inconsistent, haphazard and often very unfair to the parent with care. It tended to cherry-pick and to do individual deals. On the hon. Gentleman's general point, I hope that he will recognise the considerably improved performance of the agency over the past year, although I accept that there is still a long way to go before the service can be regarded as satisfactory.

Mr. Evennett: First, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved promotion.
How many parents were traced by the CSA last year in circumstances in which their whereabouts were unknown by the parent with care of the child? Will my hon. Friend confirm that although the CSA has had some problems it has done much good work for parents with care, who can now discover where the absent and feckless parent is?

Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Last year, in 77 per cent. of all cases taken on

by the CSA the absent parent was paying nothing. Every week 1,000 absent parents are found, and 50,000 were found during the whole of last year. Their whereabouts were unknown before the agency tried to find them. There is still a long way to go, but the CSA's performance is improving.

Mr. Ingram: I welcome the Minister to his new portfolio—only time will tell whether it constitutes a punishment or a promotion, as I am sure his hon. Friend the Minister of State will inform him on the basis of his own experience in the Department.
We have heard much from the Government in recent weeks about the need to tackle benefit fraud, but are not the Government guilty of fraud on a grand scale by having continued to peddle the myth that the Child Support Act 1991 and the Child Support Agency are providing long-overdue help for children and parents with care? Who does the Minister think is to blame for the fact that by the end of March 1995 some £87 million was owed to parents with care and to children? Is that the fault of absent parents, civil servants or the Ministers who introduced the whole shambolic system?

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the kind remarks with which he opened his question.
The debt accumulated by the agency is not classic bank debt in the normally understood sense; it relates significantly to interim maintenance settlements, which account for some 70 per cent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wish to continue the bipartisan approach which ensures that the principles behind the policy are fully accepted, while emphasising the importance of continuing to make the improvements that have already been made—which, I hope, will be evident tomorrow from the CSA's annual report.

Expenditure Growth

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much planned social security spending for the year 2000–01 will be reduced compared with plans published in "The Growth of Social Security". [32765]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Since publication of "The Growth of Social Security" in 1993, projected expenditure in 2000–01 has been reduced by nearly £8 billion. More than half that amount is due to policy changes announced since 1993; the rest is largely due to improved economic and social performance over the last two years. In the longer term, total savings so far announced will be £14 billion a year.

Mr. Whittingdale: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and congratulate him on his efforts to contain the growth in social security spending.
How much of the social security budget is currently spent on asylum seekers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that part of his budget should be subjected to particularly rigorous scrutiny?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the changes that we have introduced. As I recall, the total cost of benefits going to asylum seekers is some £200 million a year. Fewer than 10 per cent. of those people are ultimately granted refugee status,


although an additional number are granted exceptional leave to remain. They are the subject of considerable interest in my Department.

Mr. Frank Field: As everyone is congratulating everyone else this afternoon, would it be in order to congratulate the Secretary of State on not moving?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying, in his Mais lecture, that it cost every person in work an average of £13 a day to pay the social security bill? In his Social Market Foundation lecture, he said that that amount had risen to £15 a day. The right hon. Gentleman is supposed to be a cost-cutting Secretary of State; what is his estimate per day for those in work at the millennium?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming my continued presence at the Dispatch Box. To echo the earlier observation of his hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), I do not know whether it is a promotion or a punishment but I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman remains opposite me as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the rise in the cost of the social security bill per working person per working day from, in round numbers, £13 to £15 over a three-year period. That is a growth of 2.7 per cent. per annum in real terms—slightly below the long-term trend of 3.3 per cent. The figure in real terms at the millennium will be about £16 per working person per day as a result of the changes that I have introduced. It would be considerably higher if we had not made those changes, and I remind the House that the Opposition opposed nearly all of them.

Single Parents

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the cost of benefits to single parents in 1995–96. [32767]

Mr. Lilley: It is estimated that total benefit expenditure on lone parents in 1995–96 will reach some £9.5 billion.

Mr. Marshall: My right hon. Friend is known as a supporter of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Would he like to comment on the pamphlet produced by that organisation in which Dr. Morgan says that the tax system penalises those mothers who stay at home while the benefit system helps lone parents? Does he agree that the single parent's premium, which costs taxpayers some £250 million, must be re-examined?

Mr. Lilley: We keep all benefits under review as part of our long-term review of public expenditure. Although we must recognise that some of the £9 billion would go to those parents even if they were not lone parents, the cost of lone parenthood adds about £1,500 a year to the taxes of married couples who are supporting their own children in addition to paying to support others. That is why we have to look rigorously at those benefits. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes the £10 per week family credit premium that we have announced today for those working more than 30 hours a week. That will be particularly beneficial to married couples, who will constitute some three quarters of the 350,000 receiving that extra help, thus encouraging self-supporting families.

Mr. Wicks: As many lone parents would love to have the independence that a proper job brings, why in the last 16 years has a growing proportion of lone parents had to

depend on income support? Why have the Government not taken action through education, training and child care to move people away from dependency, which they do not want, to independence, which they do want?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman, who has always taken an informed and intelligent interest in this subject, is right to say that there was a rather disturbing disparity in the trend, with married women going out to work in increasing proportions while lone mothers were increasingly staying at home. That trend reversed about two or three years ago, partly as a result of the measures that we have taken—the introduction of the child care disregard in family credit and increasing efforts to get maintenance from absent parents. Both those measures have helped lone parents to go out to work and an increasing proportion are doing so. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that as much as I do.

Mr. Alan Howarth: We hear much about plans for a crackdown on social security fraud—and no doubt it is right to do that—while the appetites of the affluent are being whetted for future tax cuts. Would it not be at least as attractive for the Government to emphasise their plans for the relief of the unemployment and poverty traps? As my right hon. Friend wishes to see honest work rewarded, will he state his plans to improve the position of lone parents on income support who have benefit deducted pound for pound on earnings above £15 a week? I do not think that that disregard has been uprated for seven years, and there is no allowance for the cost of child care or other work-related expenses.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have to crack down on fraud, but he is wrong to suggest that the primary support for that comes from the affluent. In my experience, the greatest support for these measures comes from what might be called the hard-working class—people who take home very modest sums as a result of working hard 40 hours a week and who see other people manipulating the system to obtain full benefit while not declaring some earnings. That is greatly resented by the hard-working class. My hon. Friend asks what we are doing to improve incentives to work: I point out to him the new £10 family credit supplement which is being introduced this very day.

Non-uprated Benefits

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to uprate those benefits that have not been uprated since they were introduced. [32768]

Mr. Lilley: The next uprating is due to take effect in April 1996. I shall be announcing my proposals at the appropriate time.

Mr. Flynn: Why are the widow's payment and 23 other important benefits still frozen? That payment replaced a benefit—the widow's allowance—which was increased by the rate of inflation every year. The Government have refused to increase it. If they had increased it by the level of earnings, it would now be worth not £1,000, which was the amount when it was first announced, but £1,881. To fund an election bribe to 5,000 of the richest people in


Britain, the Government are cheating the widows, the sick, the elderly and the recently bereaved. Is that not mean and despicable?

Mr. Lilley: No, it is absolute nonsense. We keep all benefits, including the widow's benefit, under review. There is an increasing proportion of people with life insurance and other provision to protect their widows in the event of their early demise. Uprating all the benefits to which the hon. Gentleman referred would have cost more than £1 billion a year. He should ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who gaily declares that a radical. reform from a socialist perspective will somehow save money, where he will get the money to meet the promises that the hon. Gentleman is willing to throw out.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have been able to uprate benefits in the social security system because we have developed a dynamic enterprise economy? Would not a less punitive regime of capital gains tax improve the dynamism of the economy and make us more able to uprate social security benefits?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. The best counterpart to a good welfare state system is a dynamic and vibrant free enterprise economy generating the wealth to pay for it, which is what we have, and creating opportunities for people to work and to make provision for their own retirement. Lower taxes of all kinds help that; that is why the Labour party's approach of raising taxes across the board would hit the growth of our economy on the head and ultimately undermine our ability to help those most in need.

Further Education Students

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many further education students have had their benefits suspended in each of the last two years. [32769]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): This information is not available.

Mr. Ainger: As the Minister knows, because I have written to him on a number of occasions—as, I am sure, have many other hon. Members—part-time further education students have had their benefits suspended. Does he agree that that is a scandal, bearing in mind the fact that both his party and the Opposition want to see a highly skilled and highly educated work force? We are actually encouraging people to give up their studies in an effort to make ends meet by living on benefit. Are the Government not truly encouraging people to be totally dependent on benefit?

Mr. Evans: No. The 21-hour rule in income support is a concession to the normal requirement that people should be available for work as a condition for benefit. It allows unemployed people to occupy their time in part with useful study while being available for and actively seeking work. It was never intended to provide financial support for people who are primarily concerned with continuing their education. The rule has applied to income support and its predecessor, supplementary benefit, since 1971.

Mr. Hawkins: Can my hon. Friend confirm that unemployed people will continue to be able to study part

time provided that they remain available for and actively seeking work, and that those arrangements will continue under the jobseeker's allowance?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The arrangements will continue under the jobseeker's allowance with the exception that instead of the 21-hour rule, which includes time for homework, there will in due course be provision for 16 guided learning hours, to reflect the changes in Further Education Funding Council-funded courses. It is estimated that the same number of people will benefit under the new rules as under the old.

Child Support Agency

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many payments of compensation on the grounds of error, maladministration or delay have been made by the Child Support Agency at the latest date for which figures are available. [32770]

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: A special payment may be considered where, for example, a clear and unambiguous error or unreasonable delay by the Child Support Agency has resulted in a measurable financial loss. To date, 44 special payments have been made as a result of error or delay on the part of the agency.

Mr. Gunnell: Does that reply not indicate that the criteria for giving special payments are extremely narrow? Every hon. Member must have written to the Minister's predecessor about cases of delay in administration. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has commented on a number of those cases. What exactly are the criteria for making special payments? Is it not time that the criteria were widened? Is it not time that the £44—or whatever the exact sum is—that people pay for the administration of the Child Support Agency was remitted to those who find that the administration causes them endless grief?

Mr. Mitchell: The compensation is made for measurable financial loss. It is clear, however, that the Department's scheme needs to be reassessed in the light of the unique nature of the Child Support Agency's business. I have therefore asked officials to speed up the process and to report to me urgently on the options available.
On the two specific cases that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman with my Department, the administrative improvements will help his constituents greatly, in terms of both better information systems and better help lines. The Child Support Agency can make special payments so long as a clear and unambiguous error by the agency, resulting in actual financial loss, has been made.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. Does he agree that if anything proves the necessity to have the Child Support Agency, it is precisely the fact that 77 per cent. of lone parents contacted by the Child Support Agency last year were receiving no help whatever from the absent parents? Does he also agree that hon. Members are receiving more and more correspondence from parents with responsibility, who now want the agency to act on their behalf? Will he do all that he can to ensure that it acts much more competently and professionally than it has hitherto?

Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Correspondence with Members of Parliament is


much improved. Work on hand today is 60 per cent. down on last year and I am determined that there should be further improvements. On my hon. Friend's general comment, the administration is clearly improving. There are now much better information systems and a welcome emphasis on accuracy. Staff training has improved and there are better links with outside bodies. I shall visit all six of the Child Support Agency centres in the next few weeks to see for myself what is happening on the ground.

Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that my constituents and many others throughout the country still have horrendous problems with the Child Support Agency? It is not just a question of bad administration; the Child Support Act 1991 is flawed and should be scrapped. Does he agree that, had it not been for the shameful collusion of Labour Front-Bench Members, we might have had a fair and workable maintenance system in place?

Mr. Mitchell: Far be it from me to defend Labour Front-Bench Members on this issue, but it is a great pity that at a time when those difficult principles were widely supported both within and outside the House, while the Labour and Conservative parties have stood firm by those principles and the changes announced this year, the Liberal party turned turtle and fled the field.

Mr. Tredinnick: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion. Although I accept that the administration of the Child Support Agency has improved, does my hon. Friend agree that problems exist when it comes to reassessing people's claims of changed circumstances? Will he keep a critical eye on that aspect?

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, my hon. Friend is right to flag up that aspect of the Child Support Agency's work. Clearly, the second tier of appeals and appeal tribunals has been sharply speeded up, and a centralised unit is being set up. I am conscious of the importance of what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Dewar: I, too, add my congratulations to the new Minister and I am impressed that he got all his friends in the parliamentary Conservative party here to cheer his first appearance at the Dispatch Box.
May I remind the Minister that, although we stand by the principle that parents should contribute to the upkeep of their children, we are not satisfied with the present system and will press for further change? I genuinely welcome his announcement that the compensation system is to be reviewed as 44 payments is a shaming total in view of the widespread public concern about how the agency has been operating and the scarifying criticism that has come, for example, from the National Audit Office and from Select Committees.
May I ask the Minister about one other aspect? Does he remember that the White Paper "Improving Child Support" contained a pledge that, from last April, in cases where delay was clearly the fault of the agency, consideration would be given to waiving all but six months of accrued arrears? Has that power been used and what sort of guidance has been given to define the situations in which consideration could lead to payment?

Mr. Mitchell: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I understand that that is now in process and, following what he has said, I shall follow developments all the more closely. This year's changes are of immense importance.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who took them through the House of Commons, has shown that, by listening carefully to what hon. Members on both sides of House say, improvements to the formula could be made. We have managed to knock off some of the rough edges from the formula, which all hon. Members agreed was necessary, and in some cases we have gone further than the Select Committee on Social Security urged us to go.
We have also ensured that, for the rump of hard cases, the departure system will be introduced as soon as is practical. All that makes the Child Support Agency's work and the targets that we all want it to attain, that much more readily attainable.

Pensioner Earnings

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the real earnings of pensioners have changed since 1979. [32771]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): Pensioners' average incomes have increased by 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Earnings represent a small proportion of the total.

Mr. Spring: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his thoroughly deserved promotion. Will he confirm, not only that pensioners' average incomes have risen faster than those of the population as a whole, but that three quarters of pensioners under a Conservative Government now have an income flowing from their own investments and savings?

Mr. Heald: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. The Government's policy of providing a sound basic pension, of encouraging private provision, and of targeting through the benefit system the poorest pensioners has been working well, but it has been underpinned by the Government's economic policies, especially the policy of low inflation. What pension members will have to consider is, having bought into the disreputable Labour old banger—the vehicle of state that it produced in the 1970s—whether they now want to buy the same vehicle just because the salesman smiles more sweetly and there are "go faster" stripes on the side.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the increased level for older pensioners is less than that for younger pensioners? Is it not derisory and an insult to those people that when they reach the age of 80, they still receive only 25p extra a week? Is it not time that that sum was increased?

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman is making what, in a way, is an obvious point: as time has gone on, the position on pensions has improved, but he should know that the poorest pensioners are still better off. They are 15 per cent. better off in real terms than in 1979 and that is under a Conservative Government.

Mr. Forman: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new duties and pay tribute to this Government's record in price-protecting the value of pensions. Does it none the less remain the case that a small and declining group of pensioners is solely dependent on the state pension, that they often have to rely on income support as well, and


that the Government should think of being more generous to them in a targeted way? Will my hon. Friend give his considered support to that proposal?

Mr. Heald: It is right, of course, always to review these issues, but the fact is that, as from next April, the poorest pensioner couples will receive £100 a week in benefits through the system. It is also right at this point to mention the campaign by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security against benefit fraud. In targeting benefits on the poorest pensioners, every pound counts and it is right that we should use every penny that we can for proper purposes. We should welcome the response that the fraud campaign has had, not just from the general public, but from newspapers such as The Sun, which, through its hotline, will provide valuable information to the Government.

Family Credit

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have lost family credit in the last 12 months on the basis of money awarded by the Child Support Agency and have not yet received the award. [32774]

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: None. Family credit is assessed on the basis of income actually received before the claim. If maintenance is not being paid, it will not be taken into account in assessing family credit.
Where maintenance has reduced as a result of the recent child support changes, recipients will receive compensation for the remainder of their family credit award.

Mr. Bennett: When does the Minister expect the Child Support Agency to work efficiently and effectively?

Mr. Mitchell: I have already answered that question this afternoon. On the hon. Gentleman's specific point about family credit, the CSA is the solver of the specific problem which he mentioned, not the reverse, because it adds to the amount due, but not paid to the bill, and chases it up. That did not happen under the old system.

Mrs. Roe: May I also add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his promotion and wish him every success in his new role? Can he confirm that the 30-hour premium on family credit has been launched today, which will give an extra £10 a week to those new claimants for family credit who are working full time? I understand that that could benefit up to 345,000 claimants.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. That welcome news, which has been received today, will affect 345,000 claimants. It will give extra encouragement to those on low pay, who are working full time. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that three quarters of those affected are married couples.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Roger Levitt Case

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee by the director of the Serious Fraud Office that he did not authorise plea bargaining in the Roger Levitt case. [32753]

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The director of the Serious Fraud Office gave oral evidence to the Select Committee on 12 June and again on 11 July. The extent of his involvement in the discussion of possible pleas in the Levitt case has now been fully explained by him to the Committee.

Mr. O'Brien: Surely the Attorney-General cannot expect to get away with that reply. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, of which I am a member, has received damaging evidence from senior QCs that the Serious Fraud Office and its counsel misled the Attorney-General; that, in turn, he inadvertently misled the House; that the prosecution of Levitt was bungled and that a cover-up was instituted, which involved attacks upon the judge in that case. They are serious allegations, which cannot be left unheard, and we need an independent inquiry into the facts. If confidence is to be restored in the Serious Fraud Office, I believe that the director of it, George Staple, must go.

The Attorney-General: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is being at all just to the director of the Serious Fraud Office. I do not believe that an independent inquiry of that type is called for, as I shall explain. First of all, the hearing in the case was in public and the matters which took place before the judge were all recorded by a shorthand writer.
The hon. Gentleman, and other members of the Select Committee will know that there is an unhappy background to the case in that it gave rise to a complaint by leading counsel for the Crown against leading counsel for the defence. It is the subject of disciplinary hearings that are still to take place before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council, which will comprehend, in one form or another, most of the matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised in his question today.
Finally, the Select Committee has its own proper interest in questions such as the interplay between the Serious Fraud Office and the regulators and the wider question of plea bargaining in the American sense, if that were ever to be appropriate here. I believe that we have quite enough public inquiries as it is.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that in his answers of December 1993 he quite unwittingly misled the House? Can he tell the House who saw those draft answers before he put his signature to them? Does he also agree that the head of the Serious Fraud Office should resign because of the botched nature of the prosecution of Roger Levitt and the fact that, subsequently, he appeared not to be in command of his brief?

The Attorney-General: With respect, I do not agree with my hon. Friend, but I shall answer his question. I think that I have given the fullest series of answers on any criminal case about the detailed history in relation to this case, including answers to my hon. Friend. I shall be perfectly clear with the House. I know a great deal more about the case today than I knew about it when I was first answering in December 1993. The substance of my answer, and one point in particular which I think that my hon. Friend has in mind, is correct. But if I had known everything that I know today, I would have phrased it


somewhat differently. I have made that perfectly clear in answers which I have hitherto given and which I am giving to the House today.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Attorney-General must surely realise that there is a sense of public outrage. When bank clerks and postal workers misappropriate trivial sums of money, they immediately go to prison, yet when Mr. Levitt decided that he did not want to go to prison, the system seemed to conspire to meet his wish. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel a similar sense of outrage that he clearly, personally was misled by his own advisers and that, as a result, inadvertently—we totally concede—he misled the House? What he has said today will not end this matter. It will not go away as he would want. Unless and until an independent inquiry looks into the conflict between the several counsel in this case and the background of the misleading of the Attorney-General, it will go on and on.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman raised two points. The first was about the sense of public disquiet as to the outcome of the Levitt case. The later stages of the case were not happy. What went on is very much in the public domain and I do not think that anyone is particularly happy about that. In part, that has given rise, rightly or wrongly, to the disciplinary proceedings which are to be heard before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council, at which—I repeat this to the hon. Gentleman—these matters will no doubt be fully explored by a tribunal which will have to decide very difficult issues. Frankly, those issues are not for this House. I have given very full and candid answers to the House. I have corrected my earliest answer on one particular, which should not, I respectfully say, be exaggerated.
The nub of the question suggested that the Crown was trying to throw in the towel from an early stage. That is not correct, I am satisfied of that. But I have expanded my answer to make it clear that there was a to-ing and fro-ing between counsel. This could have been described as a "suggestion", so long as it was not understood in the way that I have explained and made clear since.

Public Interest Immunity Certificates

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to reform the system of public interest immunity certificates. [32755]

The Attorney-General: The law on public interest immunity has been developed primarily by the courts. Public interest immunity certificates are one of the subjects under consideration by Sir Richard Scott. The Government will take careful note of any conclusions and recommendations in his report.

Mr. Prentice: Can the Attorney-General tell the House why Customs and Excise has refused on three occasions to hand over copies of public interest immunity certificates to Sir Richard Scott, which he considers necessary for the completion of his inquiry? Is not it as plain as a pikestaff that the Government are strewing with obstacles the path that Sir Richard Scott is treading in trying to get some truth from the arms to Iraq inquiry?

The Attorney-General: I am sure that the answer to the latter question is a flat no. I confess that I do not know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is referring to in the question about certificates going to Sir Richard Scott. If he

is referring to the three public interest immunity certificates which are before the Court of Appeal today, I am given to understand that the court has indicated that it has no objection to those certificates going to Sir Richard, and they will go to Sir Richard. May I just add this: a big lie, a wholly false notion, that the signing by Ministers of public interest immunity certificates somehow involves sleaze or impropriety, has been spinning around the globe for three years.

Mr. MacShane: I wonder why.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman says that he wonders why. It is because people like him have not bothered to look into the system. The hon. Gentleman and the House should know that, in a criminal case, when there is a public interest immunity certificate, every document covered by that certificate is shown to the judge before he makes a decision. That happened in the Matrix Churchill case and it is happening in the Ordtech case which is before the Court of Appeal today. The big lie should be laid to rest now.

Mr. Garnier: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law, that the public interest immunity certificate system cannot, under any circumstances, operate as a gagging order? As my right hon. and learned Friend has just said, does not the criminal trial judge look at every document covered by the certificate?

The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. The expression "gagging order" is part of that big lie. The system is created by the courts, and has been approved and modified by the courts. I can confirm what my hon. and learned Friend said: in a criminal case every document covered by a PII certificate is shown to the judge so that he or she can decide whether or not the document should be disclosed to the defence for use in the trial.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Nigeria

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review aid provision to Nigeria. [32793]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): We have no plans to review our aid programme to Nigeria. Since the annulment of democratic elections in 1993 new projects have been confined to those bringing direct benefits to poor Nigerians.

Mr. Hain: I congratulate the Minister on his new job and hope that it will be gaff free.
I urge the Minister to stop all aid to Nigeria. Surely, that country is now behaving like a banana republic—it refused to recognise the free and fair 1993 elections, imprisoned the victor, Moshood Abiola and prosecuted, on a fraudulent basis, with the promise of a death penalty, Ken Saro-Wiwa and other representatives of the Ogoni people. The Government are not fit to be recognised by the rest of the world and a tough stand must be taken against them to ensure that human rights abuses end and democracy is restored as soon as possible.

Mr. Hanley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for some of his opening remarks. I am absolutely thrilled to be taking


on these responsibilities. It is a great honour to be a Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; it is one of the most fascinating and absorbing of offices. My slightly less than conventional direction of approach to the Department makes no difference to my delight at serving in it.
To turn to the matter at hand, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) knows Nigeria well and has taken on responsibilities there on our behalf. He will know that, if we stopped aid to Nigeria, the people who would suffer would not be the military Government, but the poorest people. We take great care to ensure that aid goes directly to the poor. We avoid using the Government; we use non-governmental organisations wherever possible. Exactly those people for whom the hon. Gentleman cares would suffer if we followed his policy.

Mr. Lester: Will my right hon. Friend look into the case of General Obasanjo, whom many of us know and have worked with. He has been charged and convicted by a military court and we are concerned that somebody of his age and experience should be kept under house arrest or in prison.
Does my right hon. Friend have any knowledge about whether General Abacha is going to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Auckland? If the general is not going, will my right hon. Friend try to persuade him to go so that he can receive the full weight of the views of the Commonwealth leaders on the way that he is running his country?

Mr. Hanley: We noticed, of course, the announcement on 14 July that 40 people have been found guilty, by a military tribunal, in connection with an alleged coup plot. We understand that the verdicts have been submitted to the Provisional Ruling Council for approval and we strongly urge the PRC to display clemency when considering the verdicts against all the accused.
To answer my hon. Friend's second question, there is widespread concern in the Commonwealth about continued military government in west Africa. It is contrary to the principles of the 1991 Harare declaration. It is difficult to see how Nigeria can play a full role in Commonwealth affairs until it puts its house in order.

Mr. Foulkes: I also welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities—I am sure that he will find them more satisfying than his previous incarnation.
Has the Minister had time to discover that one of the criteria for awarding British aid is good governance? Has he seen the comment by his colleague the right hon. and noble Baroness Chalker that, unless there are changes in Nigeria, its membership of the Commonwealth must be reconsidered? I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is not merely rhetoric because the imprisonment of a democratically elected leader is quite intolerable. It is not something that could be described—to use one of his previous phrases—as "mere exuberance".

Mr. Hanley: It is a particular honour and a pleasure to answer in this place for my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker. I look forward to working with her on this portfolio for many months to come. [Interruption.] For many, many months to come. We are talking about very serious matters, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to lift his game a little.
We share the considerable Commonwealth and African concern about Nigeria. However, sanctions or other such measures could be decided only by the Commonwealth collectively if we chose to embark on that course of action. I agree with my right hon. and noble Friend that Nigeria should have taken very clear steps forward before the Auckland Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, including announcing a credible timetable for a return to civilian democratic rule. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman's final comments about the imprisonment of any democratically elected person.

Saharawi Refugees

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is available for the Saharawi people within Morocco and in refugee camps in Algeria. [32794]

Mr. Hanley: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is operating a care and maintenance programme for Saharawi refugees in southern Algeria. As a leading donor to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Overseas Development Administration contributed more than £20 million in 1994 to the general programme budget from which those contributions were made.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that the Saharawi people have been dealt a dreadful blow by the actions of Morocco in occupying the western Sahara for many years? Is not it very important to increase pressure to complete the registration programme so that a referendum can be held to allow the Saharawi people to decide their own future?
Despite the aid that is being given, 200,000 people are living in exile and 10,000 people have been homeless and bereft of almost any support since the very serious floods last year. Can the Minister see his way clear to increase the amount of aid that Britain gives—particularly for health, education, housing and food—to ensure that those people can at least live decently until they have the opportunity for a free and democratic vote and can return to their homes?

Mr. Hanley: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. We do not recognise Moroccan sovereignty or jurisdiction over the western Sahara. We do recognise the UNHCR's figures, which show a current annual aid programme of about $3.5 million, and, as I said earlier, the United Kingdom assistance flows through the UNHCR.
Morocco and Algeria also receive substantial multilateral aid, particularly through the European Union. Morocco received about £369 million in the fourth European Community-Morocco financial protocol and Algeria received nearly £300 million. So substantial aid is going to the people to whom the hon. Gentleman has correctly drawn the attention of the House. We will make sure that that aid is used effectively. We will examine the matter of the October floods but I note that it was not judged necessary to launch an international appeal, although there has been aid in that regard.

Sir David Steel: I also warmly welcome the Minister to his new post and I hope that he has an enjoyable and fruitful few months in it, as he said.
Will the right hon. Gentleman use his time as a new Minister in the Foreign Office to look afresh at this scandalous issue? The little- known conflict has been going on ever since Spain withdrew from her former colonies. The United Nations peacekeeping mandate lasts only until the end of September, so it is urgent that Britain uses its influence in the Security Council and elsewhere to persuade the Moroccans to agree to hold a referendum on fair terms and allow those people their post-colonial rights to self-determination.

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome, and I look forward not only to working with the Department but to working with him. My first challenge will be an Adjournment debate on Wednesday, for which I thank the right hon. Gentleman. The Government are doing everything we can to encourage a referendum, and to discourage—for exactly the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave—anything that delays the holding of such a referendum.

Agricultural Expertise

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what countries receive aid from Her Majesty's Government in the form of agricultural expertise. [32797]

Mr. Hanley: We provide agricultural expertise through the bilateral aid programme to some 38 countries. I shall place a list of those countries in the Library of the House for the hon. Gentleman's assistance.

Mr. Pike: Is not it important for agricultural expertise to be given on every occasion possible? Does the Minister recognise the importance of the problems which have existed in Pakistan for the past few years caused by the pest that is doing so much damage to the cotton crop, and thereby to the whole economy, of that country?

Mr. Hanley: Yes, I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. We spent some £58 million on all aspects of technical co-operation—including expertise in agriculture, livestock and fisheries—in 1993–94, and the equivalent figure for forestry and agri-forestry is some £28 million. The ODA, through the Natural Resources Institute in Chatham, has supported research into the control of cotton pests in Pakistan since 1985, with current research focusing on the use of pheromones in controlling cotton pests and on ways of combating the resistance of pests to chemical sprays. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter.

Greenbury Report

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the report of the study group on directors' remuneration, chaired by Sir Richard Greenbury, which was published today.
The group was set up in January this year, on the initiative of the Confederation of British Industry, in the wake of public concern about executive remuneration in some public limited companies. The Government supported the setting up of the group and we now welcome the publication of Its report. We congratulate the group on a thorough, speedy and authoritative review of the issues. We welcome its recommendations in principle, and strongly support the emphasis that the group places on the need for pay to be justified by performance.
The group's report follows shortly after the report by the Select Committee on Employment on the remuneration of directors and chief executives of privatised utilities. While the Government will give a considered response to both reports when Parliament resumes after the recess, the House will expect me to make some preliminary comments now, and I willingly do so.
Pay in the private sector is a matter for companies and their shareholders. The Greenbury initiative demonstrates that companies and institutional investors recognise the level of concern on the issue and are determined to act. There is no doubting the authority of the group's recommendations. The group's report vindicates the self-regulatory approach. It will deliver more effective, speedier results than legislation could achieve. Indeed, there has already been a perceptible change in some companies' attitudes to those matters.
The Greenbury report will be underpinned by action by the stock exchange. Its recommendations are addressed primarily to listed companies. It is appropriate therefore that the stock exchange should enforce them through the listing rules. The Government welcome the stock exchange's announcement this morning that it will do so.
The Government have no intention of introducing a top people's pay policy. We do not begrudge top salaries for top performance. Our companies must compete at world level if our nation is to prosper. We must pay the rate for the job. Greenbury points out that although comparisons are difficult, total remuneration levels in the United Kingdom are well below American levels and broadly comparable with other European countries. The fastest way to drive our best talent abroad—in any field, not just business—would be to impose restrictions on earnings.
There has been particular concern about windfall gains arising from share option schemes in the privatised utilities. The Government accept the group's recommendation that for newly privatised companies, no share options should be made available until at least six months, and preferably a year or more, after privatisation.
The great success of virtually all the privatisations of recent years has been a feature of the strengthening of Britain's economy. Consequently, some share options have yielded substantial benefits to those who guided that success. But the huge achievements of the privatisation programme have also brought dramatic benefits for

consumers in terms of lower prices, more choice, better consumer-focused service and more investment, as well as a large and growing flow of revenue to the Exchequer through taxation.
There are three recommendations for legislative action addressed to Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced this morning that the Government will introduce legislation in the next Finance Bill to withdraw the income tax reliefs at present available to directors and employees participating in executive share option schemes that have been approved by the Inland Revenue. The withdrawal of the reliefs will take effect in relation to grants or the exercising of options on or after today.
The second and third recommendations are for minor amendments to the Companies Act, to remove overlap with the group's proposals for comprehensive disclosure and to amend the Companies Act rules on the disclosure of the value of pensions benefits, when they have been drawn up by the actuarial professional bodies. The Government will consider both recommendations carefully and quickly. We remain willing to consider other legislative back-up if experience shows that it is needed.
In summary, the Government welcome the publication of the Greenbury group's report. It is comprehensive and well judged. It will help to ensure that pay is based on performance. It tackles specific problem areas with firm, fair and practical proposals. It is a package that meets today's needs, and I believe that it should be supported.

Dr. John Cunningham: I begin by taking this first opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as President of the Board of Trade. Of course, he took over from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who has become a kind of Prime Minister-in-waiting. He is not here today, we notice; no doubt he is staking out No. 10 Downing street, the great panjandrum of this decrepit Government. If the right hon. Member for Henley had been half as successful in creating jobs for the British people as he has been with his personal job creation schemes, unemployment in Britain would be much lower than it is today.
We are, however, delighted to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place. After all, it was he who, over many months, dismissed our calls for share options to be taxed as income. On 8 December last, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
The hon. Gentleman's proposals"—
referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—
on loopholes are undesirable changes in taxation on legitimate business. I have considered his proposal on executive share options many times".—[Official Report, 8 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 474.]
But he rejected it. It is little wonder that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was seen practising somersaults in the garden of No. 11 Downing street early this morning. He has opposed these proposals for many months, but we are now led to believe that he is anxious and willing to introduce them.
Does not the President of the Board of Trade recognise that, had Labour not demanded action and had Labour not reflected the understandable anger of repeatedly exploited consumers, the Government would have done nothing, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended?


Incidentally, that is also what the former President of the Board of Trade intended, as a leaked memo in March from his office to the Prime Minister made clear. It stated that the President was loth to take action. That was the true position of the Government until the Greenbury report appeared. They have in no sense reflected the public anger or the outcry that followed the many abuses.
Before the right hon. Gentleman tries to fabricate Labour policy, let me say that we have always recognised that high performance merits high reward—[Laughter.] But the reality is, and Conservative Members know it, that the rewards given by their friends and themselves to the directors of privatised monopolies bear no relation to their individual performance or merits, or the performance of the organisations. Indeed, as everyone knows, the gap between executive pay and lower pay is as wide as it has ever been. The Government have a curious philosophy that directors must be given much higher rewards to motivate them, but people on low and middle incomes must have their wages controlled to motivate them.
The Greenbury report has some welcome proposals. I believe that Sir Richard would have gone further, but members of the committee stopped him. The draft report was offered in traditional Marks and Spencer fashion—those who did not like it could take it back and change it, and they did repeatedly.
Complete transparency on salaries and pensions is welcome, as is the relation of bonuses to performance criteria. It is right that the stock exchange must be obliged to enforce the code of practice, and its decision to do so is welcome.
However, does not the Minister recognise that the report ducks the crucial issue—the issue of abuses of private monopoly power, of the need for a truly independent member on each remuneration committee, the need for shareholders to have a legal right to vote on remuneration packages at annual meetings, the need for the abolition of all share options in privatised utility companies and the need for self-regulation to be changed, as it has clearly failed and not protected consumers from those many abuses in those privatised industries?
The Greenbury report ducks the crucial issue of share option rip-offs and huge salary hikes in exactly the industries where they have been the most outrageous. Greenbury recommends a voluntary review, which the Minister has welcomed; a voluntary review by those who made themselves millionaires at our expense in the first place. Does the right hon. Gentleman—does anyone in the House—believe that those guilty of those abuses of private monopoly power will confess? Are they likely to reduce their salaries and their share options? It beggars belief that they will do so, so, frankly, the idea that self-regulation will end those abuses does not bear examination.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that privatisation has left consumers wide open to abuse, exposed to the exploitation of private monopoly power; that the weak regulatory regime has manifestly failed to protect consumers? Does not he recognise that those abuses are set to continue and that those massive personal gains will continue, as the memorandum from his predecessor to No. 10 Downing street, from which I quoted earlier, confirms? It also confirms, in case he has not read it, that
none of the options is related to performance (either of the company or the individual).

What more evidence do we need than his predecessor's own confession to the Prime Minister that none of that can be justified?
No notice has been taken at all by people in PowerGen, National Power or water companies of the public outrage that followed those abuses. The evidence is there—they do not intend to change their practices, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Indeed, in the case of British Gas, total factor productivity has been stagnant for several years, but that did not prevent the chief executive officer from giving himself a 75 per cent. pay rise, bearing no relation to the performance of the organisation.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the conclusion that he has reached—that the report is welcome—will not be welcomed outside the House by consumers, who are fed up with being exploited and fed up with the Government's failure to act? Those issues will continue to infuriate consumers until the next general election. The Government's failure to end those abuses, like their broken promises on tax, will be neither forgiven nor forgotten.

Mr. Lang: I thank the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for his welcome to me in my new position.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the handling of share option schemes and why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor resisted any change in taxation in the past. The answer is perfectly simple. Share option schemes were introduced in 1984 for senior executives, with the tax arrangements that have just been changed, to provide a long-term incentive for senior executives to become involved in privatisation exercises and make them a success. What is more, those schemes were introduced at a time when we had not completed the process of reducing the income tax levels that we inherited from Labour. We have now made considerable progress in that regard, and the privatisations are now mature and successful. The value that attaches to share option schemes is a direct consequence of the substantial contribution made by senior executives to the successful operation of privatised companies.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he believes that pay should reward performance. I remind him that it is hardly credible for him to say that, when his party is committed to a windfall tax on excess profits of privatised utilities, a training tax on employers and the introduction of a minimum wage. The right hon. Gentleman would clearly also introduce a maximum wage. Labour is going step by step towards the introduction of a full wage policy at all levels. Conservative Members know perfectly well that that is Labour's true aspiration.
Only today, the Full Employment Forum, as it calls itself—a body of 60 Labour Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament—called for a higher tax rate of 50p in the pound on all individuals earning £50,000 and more.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about monopoly. He does not seem to realise that since the gas industry was privatised, it has moved from being a monopoly to an industry of 42 companies, and 44 companies are engaged in supplying electricity. That competitive element in the provision of utilities has led to substantial advantages for the consumer—whom the right hon. Gentleman says we are not protecting. He might have forgotten that BT's


main prices have fallen by 35 per cent. after inflation since privatisation, and that domestic gas prices have fallen by around 23 per cent. since privatisation.
Perhaps the right hon. Member for Copeland is not aware that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) travelled to the far ends of the world to make a speech to the News Corporation leadership conference in Hayman Island, Australia, when he said:
Our parliamentary system is hopelessly outdated. There is, believe it or not, still prejudice against success in trade and business.
What a pity that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, in e-mailing himself down the, Internet to Australia, forgot to fax a copy of his speech to members of his Front Bench at home. The fact is that Labour does not admire success, but is interested only in state control. That is not in the interests of consumers or shareholders.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the tax changes proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will not impact on the secretaries, office workers and shop floor workers in my constituency who have taken share options? Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that many shares go to ordinary employees on average wages?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend. Labour does not like and does not choose to recognise that there are 10 million shareholders, and 6 million shareholders in privatised industries. If Labour's alleged recognition of enterprise were to be believed, one would think that it would welcome those figures.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The package is acceptable as far as it goes and disclosure will be helpful, but does the Secretary of State acknowledge that small shareholders will still be powerless? Will he introduce a new charter, to give them the authority to approve directors' packages? Will he confirm that, even after the Chancellor's new initiative in changing the tax regime that applies to such packages, the fat cats will have to pay only an extra £2,400? Surely that is small beer in terms of the losses and gains seen in the recent past.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman calls for a charter. If he reads Sir Richard Greenbury's report, he will see that it clearly sets out a code of best practice and makes a number of substantial recommendations—the majority of which are being taken up by the stock exchange and made obligatory under the listing rules. That not only greatly strengthens shareholders large and small, but sets down a code of practice that all companies will be expected to operate.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Were any requests received from the Opposition parties to widen the scope of the Greenbury inquiry to include the pay and perks of journalists, television personalities, pop stars and professional sportsmen?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. It is wrong for the Labour party to abuse and describe as fat cats those in the City whose skills and professionalism are admired throughout the world and which generate so much enterprise, revenue and employment in this country.

Mr. Greville Janner: In welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his post, may I welcome the

parts of the Greenbury report that reflect the views of the Labour minority and reject those of the Tory majority? Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Employment Select Committee report? Has he any comments to make now on that report? As I presume that he has read the Richard Greenbury report, does he unequivocally agree with all the recommendations and remarks contained within it?

Mr. Lang: The hon. and learned Gentleman is familiar with these matters because he is a long-standing member of the Ladbroke Group plc board's remuneration committee, which recently approved the chairman's salary of £583,000 and a share option package for directors worth £2.3 million. I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's participation in the discussion.
I have read the Employment Select Committee report. I shall ensure that we reply to it, as I said in my statement, in the autumn. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether I agreed with every detail and point in the Greenbury report. I have said that we welcome the report in principle, agree with most of its recommendations and will respond fully in the autumn.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: May I ask my right hon. Friend to take the opportunity to reject utterly the concept of a statutory wages policy, which would be the inevitable outcome of the comments of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? Is not the real issue the need to encourage the representatives of large institutions to take a much more active role in companies, and to find ways of enabling them to do that, which will not lead them into running foul of the necessary rules against insider trading?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Institutional shareholders are investors who seek to make a profit, just as small individual shareholders do. The fact remains that they have substantially more voting power. They tend to hold their shares for longer and they are in a position to exert greater influence. It behoves them to use that power responsibly, as many of them do. It is a matter that I shall be considering further.

Mr. Richard Caborn: Will the President of the Board of Trade give a clear answer on the voluntary code and the role that is being barred to shareholders? Will he introduce some checks and balances into the system? Those outside this place consider that to be important.
Have the Government any plans to examine the corporate government of companies, especially in regard to institutional shareholders? Will they take all stakeholders into account, especially when it comes to competitiveness? That issue has been raised on several occasions by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) about institutional shareholders. As for the code of best practice, I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the recommendations in detail to understand how they interrelate. He will then appreciate that the importance of the remuneration committee is considerably enhanced. There is a far greater requirement for disclosure, accountability and transparency. I think that that will be of considerable advantage to all shareholders.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many people will be delighted at the


Government's quick action? There was genuine concern and it will be welcomed especially that the remuneration committee, under the code of practice, will not contain people who will step up one another's salaries to suit one another. That is important, because it gives confidence. May I be the only consumer in this place who is delighted with British Gas and the service that it has given me in my new house?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes his point well. I welcome his support for British Gas. Board pay at British Gas accounts for about 15p per consumer per annum. The savings that British Gas has achieved for consumers are equivalent to £77 per annum. Those figures alone justify the level of remuneration that a company the size of British Gas has chosen to set.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Has not the President of the Board of Trade omitted to mention the mistakes and mismanagement that Greenbury found on investigating some of the carryings-on in certain utilities? Is it not a fact that some of the top cats currently under investigation were members of the 11-member committee? Has it not been said that small shareholders should have more of a say at annual general meetings before massive increases are paid? Sir Iain Vallance—a top man—was paid £50,000 to do a little job for 18 days a year, along with another £665,000; another director of a utility was paid £465,000 a year, plus £500,000 worth of share options and £38,000 to do three little jobs for three days a year. Should not the right hon. Gentleman be considering those issues?

Mr. Lang: Perhaps the difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we believe that committees should be manned by people who know something about the subject, rather than just by those with prejudices about it. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the position of small shareholders, I have noted the point made in the Select Committee's report about the circulation of motions for the annual general meeting, and we shall of course consider it.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the context of performance, one aspect of a director's responsibilities is the ability to exercise self-discipline and restraint, and to understand what is acceptable to employees as well as shareholders? Is it not important for Her Majesty's Government, in all dealings with the utilities, to encourage directors to exercise that responsibility?
In the context of international relativity, is it not also essential for Her Majesty's Government to continue to reduce direct taxes on income, so that international entrepreneurs and directors will want to make a living in this country?

Mr. Lang: I agree with both those points. When making international comparisons, however, it is important to recognise that many top managers have skills that could easily be transported to other countries. In Germany, France, Belgium and Italy, pay levels are slightly higher than in this country; in companies of comparable size in the United States, pay is twice as high as it is here. Our directors must also take that into account.

Dr. John Marek: Has it occurred to the President of the Board of Trade that, following the fiscal changes, a chairman of a privatised utility who was taking

home £300,000—perhaps in the form of share options—will take home £297,000? Less than 1 per cent. of his salary will have been taken away. The employees at the bottom of the scale, to whom the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) referred, however, may lose as much as 25 per cent.
If the right hon. Gentleman has reflected on that, will he also reflect that all the huge, unjustified payouts by chairmen of former nationalised industries to themselves and their directors are just a little like what happened in "Animal Farm"—the bit where the pigs have taken control?

Mr. Lang: Obviously, the circumstances of individual directors will vary according to their salary levels, the size of their share option schemes and their circumstances in relation to both income tax and capital gains tax. The hon. Gentleman's figures are meaningless. If he feels that the change that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has made to the tax system is inadequate, however, why on earth have his hon. Friends bayed for it over recent months?

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will my right hon. Friend pass on my congratulations to our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on reacting so quickly this morning by altering Companies Act legislation? Is it not typical of Labour Members that, if my right hon. and learned Friend had not made his statement, they would have criticised him for doing nothing; but, now that he has responded quickly to the Greenbury committee—as he said that he would—they say that he has performed a somersault? Is not that ridiculous?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can reassure him that we shall also urgently consider the other two matters for which legislation is recommended, on the disclosure of salaries in company accounts and the disclosure of pension benefit levels.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not it true that a small number of directors and executives of privatised utilities are now carrying stock share options that are worth more than £100 million—I repeat, £100 million? Will they simply be free to exercise those options, which none of them has earned? What about last week's events? We understand that some directors were able to exercise options in advance of the announcement, on the basis that they were given insider knowledge. What does the Secretary of State have to say about that as well?

Mr. Lang: I have no knowledge of any insider knowledge having existed. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of that, I hope that he will send it to me. The share options are valuable because the value of the companies rose as a result of the efficiency with which they were run after they were able to cast off the yoke of nationalisation. Privatisation, in almost every company that has had the benefit of it, has been a triumphant success. I was asked about the issue of existing share option commitments. If the Labour party is recommending that contracts and contractual arrangements that are already entered into should be ridden over roughshod and broken, I disagree.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if Greenbury's recommendations and the Employment Select Committee's majority report


are implemented, remuneration, especially of executives of privatised industries, will be transformed? I note my right hon. Friend's important point that those industries have delivered substantial price reductions. Will he keep an eye on the situation and be prepared to act again if that is needed? Will he ignore the Labour party's constant efforts simply to encourage spite and envy, which is dangerous, damaging and very silly?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Of course I shall continue to keep an eye on the situation. However, I think that the implementation of the Greenbury recommendations will bring about a substantial improvement.

Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Secretary of State now acknowledge that the public outcry about these excesses is genuine and is based not on envy but on anger, and that the Greenbury proposals will do almost nothing to assuage that anger, because they will not deal with the problem? What will he do to end the absurdity of the block vote system at annual general meetings? Mr. Giordano exercised 3 million block votes to give himself a huge increase and override the wishes of everybody at one such meeting.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady obviously knows all about block votes. There is a principle of one share, one vote, and that seems extremely fair. On the issue of voting, perhaps the hon. Lady should reflect on the outcome of the Labour party's Scottish conference in March, which on one day voted to abolish clause IV and on the next voted to renationalise every public utility.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend will, of course, bear it in mind that tens of thousands of ordinary employees have share options and will know that when they exercise them, their gains fall well within the £6,000 capital gains tax threshold. Will he avoid the trap into which the Labour party has clearly fallen and which would hit ordinary employees? Will he ensure that if there is any switch to income tax, that allowance will be kept intact for ordinary people?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am sure that the public will notice Labour's commitment to abolish share option schemes. So much for Labour's commitment to enterprise. Some 6 million shareholders have secured their shares as a result of privatisation. The vast majority of those people are small shareholders who have a stake in their company and in the future of their enterprises. Conservatives are determined that they will have the benefit of that.

Mr. Tony Banks: Who chose the members of this remuneration study group committee? Why were there no women on it and no representatives of the consumer's interest? Why did it not have an employees' representative? Why was it made up entirely of big nobs from big business, people who earn millions from salaries and options every single year? How can the public have any faith in this? All that has happened is that the fat cats have been put in charge of the creamery.

Mr. Lang: The members of the committee will note what the hon. Gentleman thinks of their skills. The chairman of the committee, Sir Richard Greenbury, runs

one of the most efficient companies in the country, which is a considerable advantage to consumers. He took a cut in his salary last year, reflecting the circumstances of his company. Indeed, the entire board of Marks and Spencer pays itself less than it gives to charity every year. The qualities and experience of the men on the committee formed the right mix to bring to bear the knowledge that was needed to get a worthwhile and sensible report, which is what we have.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Greenbury report will have no bearing on the Government's policy of reducing income and capital taxation as soon as it is prudent to do so?

Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor have said on that matter on many occasions.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The President of the Board of Trade said that he had read the report by the Select Committee on Employment. Will he confirm that the main recommendations that Greenbury came out with over the weekend are not to be found in the majority report, which was supported by his hon. Friends, but are contained in the minority report produced by me and my colleagues, the Labour members of the Employment Select Committee? As people are watching our discussions, will he correct the statement that he made earlier, which was that Labour was out to abolish share options? The Labour party has said that it is opposed to executive share options and that if executives have share options, they should be taxed as income.

Mr. Lang: In other words, the hon. Gentleman is narrowing down the qualification to say that Labour is opposed to share option schemes only for some people, preferably those who are most efficient and most senior in their companies and who have most to offer to the management of those companies. I doubt whether that will impress executives or employees.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the proposal that service contracts should not last for as long as they have historically? Does he agree that the real scandal in the City is the compensation paid to the incompetent rather than the salaries paid to the successful? Does he also agree that the politics of envy, the proposals for a minimum wage and the proposals for a maximum salary demonstrate which party is not the heir to Thatcherism, is not a believer in the market economy and hankers after the controls that hindered this country so much in the 1970s?

Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend's latter points; he has also hit on a good point about compensation. One of the reasons why shorter contracts are now in contemplation is to avoid the excessive compensation payments made to people who have turned out not to be up to the job.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the 11 members of the Greenbury committee have a total salary, excluding share options, of well over £4 million? Does he agree that nobody should take seriously anything that this group says, because it is merely trying to protect the interests of


the already very rich? If it is good enough for the very rich in industry to be paid the going rate for the job, why is the Secretary of State so opposed to the train drivers getting a decent increase for the responsible job that they do in ensuring the safety of the public and the efficiency of our railway network?

Mr. Lang: People should be rewarded according to their performance. There is no doubt that the quality of the members of the Greenbury committee justifies their level of salary. One needs only to look at the success of their various companies to see that.

Mr. Peter Hain: Is not this report simply a charter for the fat cats to keep purring contentedly? Is not the self-regulatory ethos deeply flawed and has it not failed in the past? Does not it contrast extremely starkly with the ruthless regulation of the remuneration of teachers, nurses, train drivers and others who really make this country work?

Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should look at the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), whom I see in his place. He said in February this year:
We believe that people should be rewarded for improved performance whether in the form of increased salary or the granting of options.
What a pity it is that that enlightened view does not stretch to the hon. Gentleman's Back Benches.

Mr. Richard Burden: Surely when the President of the Board of Trade seeks to equate the scandal of executive share options with the share offers that have been made available at various times to ordinary employees of privatised utilities, he is aware that there is little comparison between the two, either in terms of the nature of the schemes or in terms of their value. Some of the greatest outrage about executive share options has come from those self-same employees. If he believes that senior executives must have their loyalty to their companies won by being paid millions of pounds, why does he not take the same view about ordinary employees?

Mr. Lang: The Greenbury committee makes a number of recommendations about future share option schemes. I welcome the fact that it is keen to encourage long-term shareholdings. It is also keen that all long-term incentive schemes should be approved by shareholders, that the discounting of share options should be stopped, and that share option schemes on new privatisations should not be introduced for six months, or preferably a year. All those measures will improve the relevance and efficiency of share option schemes and remove some of the excesses that have caused so much concern.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the President of the Board of Trade explain the precise legal means that the Government have employed to ensure that share options are taxed as income rather than capital with immediate effect? Will he also explain whether the benefit to the individual taxpayer will be taxed in the financial

year in which the option is exercised or whether the taxpayer will be allowed to spread the benefit over the period from when the option was originally granted?

Mr. Lang: The change will be made in the forthcoming Finance Bill and the hon. Gentleman must wait for its publication to have his question answered.

Mr. David Evans: rose—

Madam Speaker: I watch very carefully to see which hon. Members come into the Chamber after a statement has been made. May I ask the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) whether he heard the entire statement?

Mr. Evans: I did, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I will hear the hon. Member.

Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, during the recent Labour leadership election, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) received £79,000 from three London Weekend Television directors who earned their money from share option schemes? Does not he think it a bit rich that the lot opposite should criticise us when their own leader was elected on the back of share option schemes?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We keep hearing about new Labour, but what we have seen and heard today is old Labour, which is full of envy and spite towards success and enterprise, and cannot resist interfering, regulating, legislating and controlling. Old Labour would reduce this country, as it did before, to impoverishment and high unemployment.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is it not revealing that from neither the Government Front Bench nor Back Benches have we heard one word of condemnation of the manifest and widespread abuses of salary hikes and share options in the privatised utilities? Is it not the same story in respect of their attitude to Lloyd's, for example? Once again, they have refused to take action to end abuses in Lloyd's, even though Lloyd's management has asked them to do so.
Before the right hon. Gentleman continues to misrepresent what we have been saying, will he acknowledge that I said that share options for directors of privatised utilities should be ended, not all share options, as he inadvertently claimed a few moments ago? If he reads our published statement to Greenbury and elsewhere, he will see that it is clear that we recognise that remuneration should be related to performance and that people who perform well are entitled to be well remunerated.

Mr. Lang: I shall study Hansard with great care. As for action to end abuses, that is exactly what the Greenbury committee was set up to do and what its report and recommendations should do.
On the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to enterprise, the Labour party talks in its new clause IV about the rigour of competition and a thriving private sector, but its every word and action today shows that it means the opposite.

Privacy and Media Intrusion

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the press and privacy.
I am today publishing the Government's response to the report of the National Heritage Select Committee on privacy and media intrusion. Copies are available in the Library and Vote Office.
I pay tribute to the Select Committee for its report. The Government very much appreciate the Committee's patience in its long wait for this response. The issues in this area go to the heart of our democracy and the Government have thought about them long and hard. In every democracy a balance must be struck between the rights of individuals to personal privacy and the freedom of the press. As the Select Committee recognises, that is not always easy to achieve.
It is a proud feature of our free society that for 300 years, other than as a necessity in times of war, the United Kingdom press has been at liberty to write whatever it chooses, subject to the constraints of the law as it applies equally to all citizens. Such freedoms are jealously guarded, by the press itself and by this House. The surest means of protecting those freedoms is to ensure that they are used responsibly. Overall, the quality and standards of our local, regional and national press are high. Some newspapers, however, have ridden roughshod over people's privacy when there was no possible justification for doing so. Cases concern not just those in public life, but private citizens who become the subject of media scrutiny through circumstances not of their choosing. People are entitled to privacy for themselves and their families.
In response to those concerns, the industry has taken a number of steps. An independent, non-statutory Press Complaints Commission was set up at the beginning of 1991. My noble Friend Lord Wakeham was appointed as the commission's chairman at the beginning of this year. He has considerably strengthened it. The majority of its members are now independent of the press and bring robust common sense to the cases before them. Lord Wakeham set out the steps that he has taken in a recent letter to my predecessor. It is published today as an annex to the Government's response.
The development of a national code of practice for the press is a significant improvement on what has gone before. The code, and how it is applied, is being shown to have effect. The House will be aware, for example, of a recent instance where the editor of a Sunday tabloid was publicly reprimanded by the newspaper's proprietor for breaching the code. More needs to be done and I am glad to note that, as the Select Committee on National Heritage recommended, increasingly compliance with the code is being written into the employment contracts of editors and journalists.
My noble Friend Lord Wakeham is bringing forward proposals for discussion on how both the public and the PCC can contribute to revising and further toughening the code of practice. That is welcome, as are his proposals for performance targets against which to measure the commission's efficiency and responsiveness.
It is essential that self-regulation is both effective and seen to be effective. There have been improvements to the PCC. Lord Wakeham is committed to doing more. I have

written to him setting out further improvements that the Government wish to see both in the procedures of the PCC and in the code of practice itself. My letter is published as an annex to the Government's response to the Select Committee.
We recommend that the PCC pays out compensation to those whom it judges have had their privacy violated by the press. Such awards would be paid from a fund set up by the industry. That would be a collective recognition from the industry that one of its members had wronged a member of the public.
We have proposed several ways in which the code of practice might be further tightened up. In particular, there are several points where the language of the code should be more precise, or the emphasis changed, to place greater weight on the protection of individual privacy.
We support the Select Committee's call for a direct and rapid line of communication between the chairman of the PCC and newspaper editors. That would be used to warn them where, in the chairman's judgment on the basis of the evidence submitted to him, the code was about to be breached. That could be used to head off abuses. It is also important that the public have rapid and direct access to the PCC. That facility should be well publicised in the press so that the public are aware of it.
The Government have considered carefully whether legislative options should be pursued, rather than the self-regulatory alternative. We have decided for the present to allow Lord Wakeham's commission, and the press, to demonstrate that self-regulation can be made to work. Let me say something, however, about each of those legislative alternatives.
The Select Committee on National Heritage and Sir David Calcutt's 1993 report before it both took the view that legislation was needed to prevent abuses by the press. There is disagreement, however, about the best remedies to apply. Sir David Calcutt recommended a statutory press complaints tribunal, but that was rejected by the Select Committee.
The Government agree with the Select Committee that a statutory press complaints tribunal would not be right. We believe in a free press. Like the Committee, we are reluctant to see statutory controls. A statutory tribunal would be a very significant step on a path that we have no wish to travel. For the same reason, we cannot accept the Committee's recommendation for a statutory ombudsman.
I come next to the Select Committee's recommendation for a protection of privacy Bill with both civil and criminal elements. The criminal elements would be similar to the intrusion offences proposed in the Calcutt report. The Select Committee, however, unlike Calcutt, would extend the offences to cover intrusion for any purpose and not just for publication.
The Government have made it clear that they see attractions in principle in the use of the criminal law to prevent and penalise blatant and unjustified intrusions into the privacy of individuals; nor could the owners or editors of most newspapers, we believe, legitimately object to sensible laws in that area.
The Government have therefore given the most painstaking consideration to how the necessary legislation might be drawn up. In particular, we examined from every angle how the Calcutt offences might work in practice. That work is described in detail in chapter 3 of the Government's response.
We have been guided by the principle that the law must be both clear and enforceable. It must have a good chance of catching those who are abusing their powers while not inhibiting legitimate journalistic investigation. Any legislation would have to establish a balance that protected privacy while allowing responsible journalism, and without creating defences that were so wide as to render the offences meaningless.
We have been forced to conclude that the difficulties of scope and definition of the proposed offences, and the necessary defences, are formidable. The Government would prefer to see a self-regulatory process than to introduce a law that could create more problems than it is designed to solve. The Government therefore have no immediate plans to legislate in that respect.
The Select Committee also recommended a civil remedy for infringement of privacy. That would give victims of infringements of privacy a right to damages and to seek injunctions. In 1993, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and the then Secretary of State for Scotland consulted on a new civil remedy. That consultation did not generate the clear support which the Government look for when considering major measures of law reform. The Government are not yet persuaded that there is sufficient consensus on which to base statutory intervention in this area. Moreover, the Government strongly prefer the principle of self-regulation.
On balance, therefore, the Government have decided not to legislate for a new civil remedy, at least for the present. We believe, however, that the right to privacy should be more explicitly spelt out in the industry's code of practice. For that reason we are publishing, as an annex to our response, what a civil remedy might look like, with the recommendation that elements of it should be incorporated into the code.
The House will look to the industry to respond positively to the recommendations set out in my letter to Lord Wakeham. Self-regulation still has a case to prove. Despite the serious practical difficulties, legislative measures should not be ruled out. The fact is, however, that self-regulation is the most practical way forward. The appointment of Lord Wakeham and the approach he is taking offer the best opportunity for some time that self-regulation will be made to work in a way which commands public confidence.
There are signs of a growing recognition among editors, including past miscreants, that the right of individual privacy is not to be casually cast aside. The industry now has to back the PCC and to make self-regulation fully effective. This is an issue which the Government and the House will and should continue to monitor and debate.

Mr. Chris Smith: May I welcome the Secretary of State to her new role and responsibilities? I congratulate her on her promotion and I hope that she has brought her assiduousness, but not her philosophy, with her from the Department of Health.
In the statement, the Government have clearly recognised the need for and the difficulty of balancing the right of free expression with the right to individual privacy for ordinary citizens. Any new provisions must be aimed above all at protecting the ordinary citizen, not the rich and famous, and protecting the right of the media to expose and counter injustice wherever it happens. I am not convinced, however, that the Government have got that balance right in their statement.
May I begin by expressing severe disappointment that the Calcutt committee's recommendations from 1990 on an offence of specific physical intrusion have not been adopted? It proposed a very limited set of provisions in criminal law to prevent intrusion from bugging devices and invasion of private property. In the then Home Secretary's response on 21 June, he said:
We accept them in principle."—[Official Report, 21 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 1125.]
The then Secretary of State for National Heritage said in January 1993:
The Government accept the case for new criminal offences to deal with specified types of physical intrusion and covert surveillance."—[Official Report, 14 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 1068.]
On 29 January 1993, the then Under-Secretary of State said:
the Government will therefore bring forward legislation in due course to give effect to those proposals".—[Official Report, 29 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1344.]
Not only have Ministers promised to implement those Calcutt recommendations, but Conservative Back Benchers have advocated them on several occasions, including, on 14 January 1993, the hon. Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), both of whom I see in their places today.
Such a provision against physical intrusion would at least cope with some of the worst excesses of press intrusion. When the hospital bedrooms of Gorden Kaye or Russell Harty are invaded to get a cheap story, all hon. Members wish to deal with the issue, yet the Government's statement does not do anything whatever to deal with it. Those who do not seek public limelight should surely be protected, as the very specific and limited proposals that Calcutt came forward with in 1990 would have done. The Secretary of State's excuse that it is difficult to frame legislation really does not wash. It is possible, Calcutt set out how, and the courts could, under the normal common law principles, interpret on a case-by-case basis.
May I however welcome the Government's rejection of Calcutt's 1993 recommendation for a statutory press regulatory body? It seems that the "last chance saloon" has been granted a substantial extension to its drinking hours. It is important, except in the very specific circumstances to which I have already referred, that self-regulation rather than censorship ought to be the rule. But for self-regulation to work, it must be seen to work. We note with interest the Government's sympathy for the establishment of a compensation fund for victims of press error. Is there not a danger, however, that if the fund were established with contributions across the board from all members of the press, the good papers would end up subsidising the misdeeds of the bad? Is that not a foolish way of going about ensuring that miscreants are given an incentive to behave better?
Will the Secretary of State consider one further specific change to the Press Complaints Commission: that it establishes a research capacity so that it looks not simply at individual complaints but more widely at general areas of concern about media behaviour? May I turn her attention also to the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper in 1993 and note that she has ruled out for the present the introduction of a civil offence of infringement of privacy? Without legal aid, any such civil remedy would of course be available only to those with deep pockets. May I warn her against instituting a law that would protect only the well-heeled and not the ordinary people of Britain?
Surely a much better approach would be to incorporate properly into British law the European convention on human rights, together with its article 8, with a right to the protection of personal privacy, and article 10, with a right to freedom of expression. It should include a specific definition of acting in the public interest where privacy is infringed and couple it with the introduction of a Freedom of Information Act to open up the workings of government. That would have been a sensible approach; it would have been a far-reaching approach; it would have got the balance right. The Government have today yet again missed a fundamental opportunity.

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my new office, which I am delighted to take on. I look forward to debating with the hon. Gentleman many subjects on a wide range of issues.
The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about the balance needed between the right of free speech and the right of privacy—the Select Committee report contained precisely those comments. The report stated:
The Committee does not believe that this balance can or should be achieved by legislation which imprisons the press in a cage of legal restraint".
The Government have been looking carefully at exactly that issue for the past two years.
On the criminal remedies, the hon. Gentleman and the House will see that chapter 3 of our response details at some length the intractable difficulties that beset the issue. On the subject of intrusion, issues such as listening devices, privacy and hospitals are all set out in greater detail in the code of practice, which has been substantially enhanced since the debate on the subject began. As I set out in my letter to Lord Wakeham, I expect to see further clarification and strengthening of those precise points.
As has been said:
It's how you define the 'public interest' that is so difficult. It's impossible to lay down an absolute definition.
Those are not my words, but the words of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) in an article in the News of the World. That is precisely the dilemma: we must achieve a public interest defence that does not run a coach and horses through the issue.
Finally, there is the danger of developing show trials, whereby someone whose privacy has already been breached finds him or herself able to seek redress only in a criminal court, where any vestiges of privacy that he or she had will be thoroughly lost. He or she might well be subject to further allegations and further intrusions into his or her privacy.
The hon. Gentleman is right when he speaks of the need to ensure that self-regulation carries public confidence. Lord Wakeham has set out a number of measures and we will expect them to be delivered. Above all, the House must be satisfied that the interests of our constituents are being properly served.
On the subject of a civil offence, the issues are set out in chapter 4. We also published annex B to the document which shows those civil offences, with the commendation that they should be incorporated in the code of practice.
I know that the Labour party feels that the European convention on human rights is the be all and end all, but it does not remove the tension that we are discussing

between freedom of speech and the importance of privacy. The convention means that instead of such matters being decided by a sovereign Parliament, they are increasingly being handed over to judges, and judges in Europe at that.
As for a Freedom of Information Act, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the White Paper on open government and the detailed and practical steps that the Government have taken to deliver that. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health comes to the relevant element of his briefing, he will discover detailed commitments on availability and freedom of information in the health service.

Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I am considerably disappointed that, after so long a period—going back to the 1993 Select Committee report—she has decided that inaction is the order of the day? Will she please tell the House why she believes that the voluntary system, as embodied in the Press Complaints Commission, will have some kind of force behind its recommendations? Why should we believe that editors and newspaper proprietors will behave more rationally now than they have in the past?
As to intrusion, my right hon. Friend cannot accept that a piece of legislation is too difficult to frame in relation to mechanical devices that are provable in court or that can be obtained from under the floorboards of some unfortunate person's premises. It is surely the Government's duty to try to respond to widespread public concern that the fourth estate is using methods—let us leave aside opinions—that transgress heavily upon those who are least able to protect themselves.

Mrs. Bottomley: I understand my hon. Friend's strength of feeling about the matter, which I think is shared by most hon. Members. I think that he is on solid ground when he speaks of the past and of the lack of confidence in the Press Complaints Commission. The letter that I received from my noble Friend Lord Wakeham states:
It seems to me that the manner in which the Commission dealt early in its life with several issues arousing great controversy came very close to undermining fatally that reservoir of authority—and in turn the standing of self regulation".
I think that many hon. Members will appreciate his recognition that all was far from well in the past.
On the other hand, we have already seen improvements in a number of ways. We have seen a strengthening of lay representation. The appointments committee comprises a majority of lay members, as does the Press Complaints Commission. As I set out in my letter, I wish to see lay representation on the code of practice committee. I want to see the code of practice incorporated in contracts of employment and I want to see pre-emptive action developed further through the use of the hotline.
When my hon. Friend has time to study the papers in detail, I think that he will find a number of specific measures that we wish to see incorporated and acted upon, as well as some of the detailed reservations and difficulties that my right hon. Friends have considered carefully for the past two years.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is with some regret that I have to say that the Secretary of State, in her first outing in her new portfolio, has made a bad case that will convince very few people who are concerned about freedom of the press and the protection of privacy.
By suggesting that the European convention on human rights—with its careful balance between article 8, which guarantees privacy, and article 10, which guarantees freedom of expression—is only for the courts in Strasbourg to consider and is not applicable to judges in this country, the Secretary of State abandons one of the most helpful possible remedies to the dilemma that has certainly baffled her.
Can the right hon. Lady explain why she has rejected—indeed, she has done a sharp U-turn—the acceptance by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the proposals about physical intrusion? If she believes that it is not practical to devise legislation for the courts, why should we rely or place any weight upon the prospects of the Press Complaints Commission's drafting effective legislation to operate in a voluntary manner in that sphere?
Finally, as to the right hon. Lady's proposed remedy of having the Press Complaints Commission make payments from a fund to the victims of violation of privacy, will she at least consider whether it would be better to derive that money from bonds that are put up by media proprietors and that are forfeitable, in whole or in part, if they fall foul of the code of practice to which they have subscribed?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will know that we are bound by the European convention on human rights, but to put such a measure into our law would politicise our judges. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a compensation fund and while the route that he outlined is certainly one option, there will need to be discussions between Lord Wakeham and the members of the commission as to what is the most practical way forward. It is clear from the comments of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that they will not be satisfied until they see in practice, as well as in commitment, proper protection for the men and women of this country and their privacy. I feel as strongly about the matter—as do the Government—as the hon. Members who have commented today. The issue is how we can achieve a practical solution. We believe that we have set out a way forward that will get the balance right without the adverse consequences inherent in many other options.

Mr. Roger Gale: There is some reason to believe that the press acquired details of the death of our late colleague Stephen Milligan by eavesdropping on conversations of members of the Metropolitan police by using laser-directional microphones. I have in my possession a private telephone bill submitted to me by a journalist working for the Daily Mirror, which is the kind of material supplied by private investigation agencies on a regular basis. I also have in my possession a tape made of a News of the World journalist in which he says clearly that he has total contempt for the effect of the libel laws in this country, as he knows perfectly well—as does his newspaper and presumably its proprietor—that the ordinary person cannot afford to have recourse to the laws of libel.
Most hon. Members respect entirely my right hon. Friend's assessment that a free society requires a free press. But as our press is now dabbling in excesses solely to meet the demands of a circulation war, the time has

come to act. If she is to suggest to Lord Wakeham that the Press Complaints Commission set up a fund to provide redress, let it be a very large fund indeed.

Mrs. Bottomley: I accept the points made by hon. Friend, and I recognise his authoritative position as someone involved in this field in the House for a long time. The precise examples that he gives do not address the dilemma of how we achieve legislation with precise definitions that tackles cases without adverse consequences. The questions of definitions and the public interest would time and again vex the matter. The other point about the code of practice is that it is a more flexible and less cumbersome route. I shall state to Lord Wakeham that there is a sense of anger and impatience, and that commitments and changes which have been set in hand—there have been some encouraging signs—must not only be carried through, but accelerated.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: The right hon. Lady mentioned nothing about the invading army of picket-line doorsteppers who have besieged rape victims' houses and the homes of widows of people killed in Northern Ireland, a matter which the Committee investigated, and she said very little about phone bugging. The sanctions of the Press Complaints Commission do not exist. Unlike the General Medical Council, the Law Society and even the Football Association—which fine and punish members—the PCC never does, even if newspapers break embargoes. Despite what the right hon. Lady said, the press can carry on putting hidden cameras into gymnasiums and showing women with their legs up in the air. Even Princess Di did not have the money to stop that sort of thing. The right hon. Lady's own son had his privacy grossly invaded by the press, as the Prime Minister's son did last week, simply because he was related to a politician. He committed no crime or offence at all.
That is the sort of press invasion being carried out by a group of people who are now acting like the KGB and the Stasi in every aspect of British life which they think might sell a newspaper. There is no need to bring in the judges and lawyers. We can insist on proper sanctions and a proper tribunal that is run independently, and which is not controlled by the press or in the pockets of the press.

Madam Speaker: I know that passions in this matter are running high. I am listening carefully to what Back-Bench Members are saying, but I am not hearing questions. I am hearing statements from people who feel passionately about the matter, but we must have questions to the Secretary of State.

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman said that we should not bring the judges and lawyers into the matter, but the approach that many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members are pursuing would bring endless numbers of judges and lawyers into the matter. It is extremely complex to frame legislation because whenever one area of concern emerges, a new one develops. The strength of the code of practice is that it covers a great number of areas—some of which were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—including intrusion into grief and shock, inaccuracy and distortion, the opportunity to reply and the use of listening devices. The hon. Gentleman also made the point that the code should have some bite. I expect not only that the code will be written into contracts of employment, but that dismissal will be considered in areas where the code has been seriously breached.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Should not the proprietors and the boards of directors of newspapers be made legally liable along with their editors for excesses, so that they can be held accountable for them? Is not it significant that when Mr. Michael Foot started proceedings in respect of the disgraceful allegations made against him in The Sunday Times, he got a speedy and satisfactory response as soon as he sought to associate the owner of that newspaper with the proceedings, which otherwise could have dragged on for years and cost Mr. Foot a fortune in legal fees?

Mrs. Bottomley: I accept my hon. Friend's comments about Mr. Michael Foot, who was able to seek redress. But once again it is a question of the extent to which we introduce the law into press control. To introduce statute into a free press after 300 years would be an extremely serious step with great constitutional implications.

Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State referred to a compensation fund. Does she expect her recommendation to be accepted? If so, what will be the time scale for payments to be made out of that compensation fund? Will payments be made for every breach of the code, or will further discretion be exercised by the PCC? What can an aggrieved individual do if the latter is the case?

Mrs. Bottomley: It is clear from the response to my statement following the Select Committee report that hon. Members feel extremely strongly on behalf of their constituents whose privacy has been invaded. There is no doubt that the Press Complaints Commission under Lord Wakeham needs to make urgent progress in taking forward the details of a compensation fund. It is too early for me to go into detail on how the fund would work, but it will undoubtedly be the subject of close scrutiny. I take the view that dismissal could be used against those who breach the code of practice, and that may be one of the most powerful effects to make sure that the spirit, as well as the letter, of that code is followed.

Sir Edward Heath: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on her new appointment? Is she aware that I find that I cannot agree with much of what she has said, even though some of her proposals will be useful? Is she also aware that she has shown no recognition of the fact that measures such as she has proposed have been tried time and time again in the past and have proved constantly to be unsuccessful? The time has come to deal with the matter.
I do not agree with my right hon. Friend's remark that we have a responsible British press. We have nothing of the sort. She also said that we have some of the finest press in the world. We have nothing of the sort. That used to be the case, but large parts of our press are now the worst in the world. Those of us who see a great deal of the world in our travels recognise that full well.
One essential in every sphere of life is that freedom involves responsibility and that if we abandon responsibility, we will find that our freedom is attacked. I do not wish to attack the freedom of the press, but I want us to deal with the problems that it faces.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the biggest revelation of the disastrous state of the present British press was that, during the election of the Conservative leader, only one newspaper was prepared to say who it supported while the rest plainly wished to kill him off?

They thought that they ran the Conservative party, that they ran Parliament and that they ran the country. The question is, are they now going to take notice of the fact that they do not?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that yesterday morning when people bought their heavies—let us ignore the lights—66 per cent. were owned by foreigners who have no interest in our welfare, our people or our future? Their only interests are selfish ones. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Tony Blair?"] I was somewhat surprised about that, but perhaps members of the Opposition Front Bench can explain how the Leader of the Opposition came to spend time in Sydney, consorting with Mr. Murdoch and all his minions. I know that he declared that he wants to be the second Mrs. Thatcher, but I am not sure that that is the way to do it.
Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a Bill with two simple clauses? If not, I hope that some Back Bencher will do so. The first clause would provide that no item of the media could be owned by more than one individual, corporation or trust. The second would provide that where an offence is proved—I have no doubt that Lord Wakeham will do his utmost in this respect—the apology by the newspaper involved must be printed in the same place as the original offending article and must be printed in the same sized type. There is nothing difficult in that. Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to introduce such a Bill?

Mrs. Bottomley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of the White Paper on multi-media ownership produced by my predecessor. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will table an amendment when we debate the subsequent legislation in order to pursue the course that he has outlined.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the deplorable behaviour of the press in relation to the recent leadership election involving my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am pleased that the British people have more sense than to believe everything that they read in the newspapers which, I hope, are all eating a healthy diet of humble pie.
I know not what the Leader of the Opposition is doing in the southern hemisphere or what good or ill fortune it will bring him, but I know that these are extremely serious matters. The debate will continue, and hon. Members will require further and stronger action.
As for my right hon. Friend's specific point about apologies, substantial progress has already been made on that front, but one of the other matters on which I am seeking further progress from Lord Wakeham is that the adjudication shall be produced in some detail so that, in a sense, the equivalent of case law can build up. It is important that members of the press know and understand not only the letter of the code of practice but the spirit of it. They should be aware of the consequences if they disregard the principles that are so important to all of us.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Minister is not short of suggestions this afternoon, but may I add another to the long list given by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)? I believe that the right to reply to inaccurate reporting—the right to have a correction printed in the newspaper without having to go to court—would help ordinary people more than anything else. Very few people can afford to go to court, but inaccurate reporting has destroyed many people's


lives or made them miserable without those people having the opportunity to correct the original inaccuracy. Those who do have that opportunity often have it only at the whim of an individual editor, not as a right. I believe that the right to reply should be considered.

Mrs. Bottomley: This is an area that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has explored at some length and on which he made considerable progress. Item 2 of the code of practice identifies in detail the opportunity to reply. Some progress has been made: in recent months, there has been an increase in the number of complaints reported to the Press Complaints Commission, many of them relating to accuracy or, in a sense, the right to reply. As I said, some progress has been made, but it is undoubtedly an aspect where further advances are needed.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Does my right hon. Friend recall the observation which, on being translated from Latin, reads:
Whom God would destroy He first sends mad"?
an observation which applies to some of us in public life just as it applies to some of the press? Does she accept that if that madness were to continue in some parts of the press, the British people would cut the press off at the ankles just as they cut off the king, the barons, the Church and the trade unions, even if that moment has not yet arrived in the British people's mind?

Mrs. Bottomley: I wholly share the view expressed by my right hon. Friend and my predecessor but one. There is an impatience among the British public and in the House for action to be delivered. The final sentence from Lord Wakeham's report states:
My central aim is … to ensure proper redress for ordinary people against abuses by the press, while preserving the essential freedoms of the press—without which any democracy will surely founder.
The importance of the freedom of the press in a democracy cannot be overstated. At the same time, the impatience of the House to see further action, as evidenced today, also needs to be firmly underlined. I hope that this does not first make me or my right hon. Friend mad.

Mr. David Winnick: Is not the truth of the matter that there is a never-ending circulation war among the tabloids and that the invasion of privacy, which we all deplore, makes very good stories? Why does the Secretary of State believe that what she has said today will make the slightest difference? In view of the fact that there seems to be little or no support from any party for what she is suggesting—indeed, to many of us it is a total cop-out—why does she not reconsider?

Mrs. Bottomley: The Government have been considering this matter for about two years and have examined all the options very carefully. When the hon. Gentleman has had time to read the response to the Select Committee's report in detail, I think that he will see why the intractable problems of pursuing a statutory route are so great. I wish to see further progress on the privacy front and agree that we need greater detail, greater clarity and greater enforcement.

Mr. David Mellor: May I wish my right hon. Friend well in the tenure of her new office? Is she aware that she has the sympathy of many of us in that, after two years in which the Government have been wrestling with

this matter, we appreciate how difficult it must be for her to show the smack of firm government at the Dispatch Box? May I suggest that the best defence of what she is proposing—incidentally, we should not have to apologise for not rushing to legislation—are the six pages of correspondence from Lord Wakeham in which he expresses his regrets at the way in which the PCC has sometimes conducted itself and makes suggestions for the future, and the further four pages of requirements, which all of us hope that the PCC will take seriously? The Government have willed that the press have a further round of drinks in the last chance saloon—let us hope that it is not business as usual in all parts of the bar.

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for welcoming me to a post that he held with such distinction and, indeed, to a post that he was the first to hold. He well understands the tension created by this issue. The freedom of the press is vital to our democracy, but the needs of the public to have their privacy protected are also urgent. The correspondence set out in the document gives strong grounds for encouragement. I remind the House, however, that I do not rule out legislation for all time; I am simply saying that it is the Government's view that this is the right way forward in the present circumstances.

Mr. Barry Jones: What sums of money have been considered for compensation? Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that large sums of money will be needed for deterrence, and does she understand that hon. Members on both sides of the House are disappointed with the measures that she proposes?

Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot go into detail about the sums of money, but I have to say that I believe that the real deterrent will be the threat of dismissal for those journalists or editors who flout the code of practice.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Today may not be the best time to have a dispassionate debate about privacy and the freedom of the press, but does my right hon. Friend accept that the fact that, although a breach of privacy is easy to recognise, it is difficult at law to define what privacy is, should not prevent us from seeking to do so?
Would my right hon. Friend therefore reconsider Calcutt I and ensure that that comes into force, as recommended by the Calcutt committee, as soon as possible? If she is not minded to do that, would she, when considering the powers of the Press Complaints Commission, allow it not simply the power to award damages out of some fund, but the power to award damages against the newspapers and to make those awards enforceable at law?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his suggestions. When he has time to read the document in detail, he will see set out the intractable and complex issues involved. I want progress on the compensation fund, and I shall pass on his comments to Lord Wakeham for further consideration.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Would not the moral basis of the House for dealing with that section of the press that obviously represents the worst of journalism be immeasurably increased if a Freedom of Information Act were on the statute book? Will that not require the election of a different


Administration from the present one—one who also will be able to direct attention to the abuses that our constituents suffer as a result of the malpractices by sections of the press at present?

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman refers to a Freedom of Information Act. He knows full well that we applaud the ends but not the means. That is why there has been such substantial progress on the White Paper on open government, which has been developed throughout Government Departments—not least, as I said earlier, in the Department for which I previously had responsibility.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment and on at least giving some dentures to what has previously been a toothless bulldog—the Press Complaints Commission.
I do not understand, however, why my right hon. Friend speaks about intractable difficulties in introducing legislation. Most of the states of the United States have managed it, and they operate under English law. The French have it; the Germans have it; the Italians have it; so why cannot we have it too?
Is not something wrong when in this country members of the press are unable to look into the Robert Maxwell situation—journalist friends of mine knew what Robert Maxwell was up to but were unable to do genuine investigative journalism because of the fear of gagging writs—but they are able to look into the gym of the Princess of Wales?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend talks about watchdogs. To quote Lord Wakeham again, he says:
We are a watchdog with sharp enough teeth to bite the hand that feeds us, or we are nothing.
I quote frequently from him because of the clear determination that we now have to improve the service provided to protect the public.
My hon. Friend referred to the circumstances in France. I believe that, if people examined in detail the laws in France, few would believe that they were appropriate in this country. I believe that there are serious deficiencies in those, which would not be acceptable in our system of parliamentary democracy.
What my hon. Friend said about Robert Maxwell was related to the law of libel, and it identified once again the fact that, even where there is an existing law, it is extremely difficult to ensure that in practice that law tackles every abuse or misuse.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Both in her letter to Lord Wakeham and her statement, the Secretary of State spoke rightly about the need to head off potential abuses by way of, presumably, the so-called hotline, which would be available both within and outwith so-called business hours. What kind of measure is that—how practicable and how efficient? How can an ordinary person who is being besieged by so-called journalists from the tabloids prevent an upcoming story from appearing in, for example, a newspaper, in 24 or 48 hours? Surely the right of reply, the apology and the compensation are much more effective deterrents than that hotline.

Mrs. Bottomley: I am not altogether in agreement with the hon. Gentleman because I believe that most people

want above all to prevent the material from being published in the first place. Any redress that takes place afterwards is on the basis that the damage has already been done.
The hotline, which would be widely advertised, would ensure that the Press Complaints Commission could indeed make contact urgently with the editors of the newspapers concerned. A help line is already available so that the public may go straight to the editors. We are talking about one in which the Press Complaints Commission would be involved.
There are other examples of progress, such as that prompted by concern for those experiencing grief and shock. The police and Army have a practice of advising people whose relatives have lost their lives in traumatic circumstances. As the report says, we wish to develop that as good practice to ensure that people have the skills, and know where to turn, so that in such circumstances they are able to protect their interests long term, but we want pre-emptive action above all.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Although I recognise the Government's reluctance to legislate, is my right hon. Friend aware of the public revulsion for tactics such as those used by the press in doorstepping the wife of the late hon. Member for Dudley, West, Dr. John Blackburn, only days after his death last November? Although it is important to talk about compensation where the Press Complaints Commission is concerned, would not even that be inappropriate in such circumstances, and is it not more appropriate to talk about penalties that the Press Complaints Commission could levy on recalcitrant newspapers?

Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, my hon. Friend identifies a set of circumstances in which the code of practice recognises that that procedure should not be deployed.
I have to say to those of my hon. Friends who want a statutory approach whereby every misdemeanour is enshrined in legislation as subject to court proceedings or legal activities, that I believe that such an approach would create a monster that we would live to regret. I do not believe that such legislation could be framed for every circumstance. Its administration would be out of all proportion to its benefits and there are, as I have said, severe difficulties about the public interest defence and about the development of show trials, which in many ways exacerbate the misery that causes them.

Mr. David Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, as a mark of the attitude that the House and Members of the House have towards the press and the great fear that they have, I have been strongly advised not to intervene or to ask any questions for fear that the press, who are up there in the Press Gallery, will start terrorising me again, as they did a year and a half ago and as they did all last week?
Most Members of the House feel that the Government are taking a thoroughly gutless and supine approach, that we should break up the press and that we should have a privacy law.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people cannot obtain legal aid and simply cannot afford to sue in a libel action? I had cause to monitor the press for about six weeks, and I found that it was not wealthy or public figures who were libelled day after day, but perfectly ordinary people, whose lives were being shattered by the press. We should


be protecting those people just as much as people who are in the public eye. They have no recourse at all; nothing that we do helps them. We really must have some type of privacy law to protect people like that.
We must also break up the press. Is my right hon. Friend aware that papers such as The Sunday Times do not fire the shots? They put the information through to The Sun down to Today, and Today fires the shots. It is a rotten rag. I do not suppose that anybody in this Chamber reads it. We should break up the monopoly of the Murdoch press. The Labour party will not do that—it is off to Hayman Island with Murdoch.

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks with great emotion and strength of feeling, for good reason. I have great sympathy with his comments and respect them. My hon. Friend and many other hon. Members—either for themselves or for the sake of their families—feel bruised and scarred by personal experience of the press behaving reprehensibly. My hon. Friend is concerned about not only those of us in public life, who elected to stand for public office but whose privacy should not be as curtailed as some might wish.
My hon. Friend spoke about the accessibility of procedures for men and women throughout the country. He speaks as a lawyer. Many people do not feel that the legal processes, however defined, would be user friendly, easily accessible and flexible as a means of redress. It matters that the Press Complaints Commission acts swiftly and flexibly—without great cost to users—to prevent wrongdoing before it happens. Anything after the event is after the damage. Surely we should be pressing most vigorously for pre-emptive action.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does not the Secretary of State realise that her statement has received virtually no support from any part of the House? In the light of hon. Members' response and our lack of confidence that the right hon. Lady's proposed steps will give any real protection to the privacy of ordinary people or enhance the legitimate freedom of journalists and the media, will the right hon. Lady withdraw her proposals and think again?

Mrs. Bottomley: After a two-year delay in responding to the Select Committee's report, I do not believe that the House would want me to think yet again. Having considered the complex and difficult matters in question at great length, the Government have set out their decision. We do not rule out legislation for all time, but we believe that the changes in hand and those that we are requiring from the Press Complaints Commission offer the prospect of better protecting the public.
This debate has largely concerned the national press. There are many regional and local newspapers throughout the country. If a statutory approach were adopted for the local and regional press, that would have a profoundly adverse effect on many of those people whom a few of us, in our constituency capacities, wish to criticise. They are also part of the picture.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: We must now move on.

Sir Michael Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In 21 years, I have never sought to challenge the Chair, but I seek your guidance. Those of us who wanted to raise on behalf of our constituents—the little people against the big battalions—the invasion of privacy in recent months are naturally frustrated that we have not caught your eye, Madam Speaker. Can you give some assurance that you will seek to take into account those of us who have been unable to catch your eye today, when the matter is considered again—as I believe it must?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I have a list of hon. Members who have not been called. I am as frustrated as the hon. Gentleman, and I am glad that he raised the matter. I have listened for more than an hour, and at the beginning I hoped to call all hon. Members who were seeking to catch my eye. Although I intervened, many hon. Members insisted on making long statements, and there were long answers from the Dispatch Box. When that happens, I am unable to call all hon. Members who rise. The answer lies to a large extent with Back Benchers, as with the Secretary of State—who often gives long answers.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Order [19 December],

That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 19th July, do adjourn till Monday 16th October.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

PERMITTED HOURS IN LICENSED PREMISES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert—

("(3) In subsection (6) (off-licences), the words "or Good Friday" shall be omitted and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "and the permitted hours on Sundays, other than Christmas Day, shall begin at ten in the morning".")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.

Mr. Baker: The amendment to clause 1, and the consequential amendment to schedule 2, will make the hours that off-licence shops may sell alcohol on Good Friday 8 am until 10.30 pm, rather than 10 am to 10.30 pm as the Bill provided when it passed from the House to another place. There are no restrictions on the hours when shops such as supermarkets may open on Good Friday, and many supermarkets open quite early on Good Friday morning. A starting time for off-licence hours of 10 am would therefore mean that between, say, 8 o'clock or 8.30 am and 10 am, supermarkets would have to cordon off their stocks of alcohol to prevent sales taking place. That is precisely the kind of practice that the Bill is intended to do away with and is a source of understandable annoyance to shops and shoppers.
The Government propose that the amendments should be accepted. As Good Friday is a religious festival, we accept that there may be issues of conscience. We therefore envisage a free vote, in the event of the amendment being pressed to a Division.

Mr. George Howarth: The issue is not, contrary to the Minister's remarks, enormously important or controversial. The Sunday question was settled in November 1993, with the introduction of the Sunday Trading Bill, when hon. Members who wanted Sunday kept a special day effectively lost the argument.
Speaking in favour of the amendment for the Opposition in another place, Lord McIntosh said that it was a tidying-up measure—and the Minister accepted that argument. Amendment No. 1 will allow supermarkets with off-licences to start selling alcohol on Good Friday between 8 am and 10 am—a provision that the original Bill excluded. Consequently, alcohol will be treated in the same way as other products. For the Government, Lady Blatch drew a distinction between licensing law and ordinary Sunday trading law, emphasising that Good Friday is an important day in the Christian calendar. There has since been a change of heart by the Government, but both Lord McIntosh and the Minister in the other place made it plain that the issue was best left to individual conscience and to a free vote. On balance, I am inclined


to support the amendment if the House divides. However, my hon. Friends are perfectly free to follow their own consciences.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am not inclined to oppose the amendments, but I hope that the Government will bear it in mind that some people live in tenemental property above shops. Often, they do not enjoy the rest to which they are entitled. The situation is different for people living in a semi-detached property or in a four-in-a-block house with no shops underneath. Residents living in tenemental property over shops in which alcohol is sold find that buyers often drink their purchases on the premises.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The complaint that my hon. Friend has outlined has been brought to me by many of my constituents. Traditionally, the only day of freedom from the public drinking that my hon. Friend has described, from the entering and leaving of shops, has been Sunday. That freedom is disappearing and many of my constituents will not get a day of rest from public drinking.

Mr. Martin: I agree with my hon. Friend and take his point.
Where alcohol is being purchased, especially from shops above which people are living in tenemental properties, there should be more policing to ensure that those who purchase it move on to their homes or to other places so as to give peace and quiet to those living above liquor shops.
Young people sometimes congregate in what we in Glasgow call the close mouth of a tenement. Sometimes they consume alcohol and urinate in the closes. Even on a Sunday, residents of some tenements do not get any rest. In some instances, they are embarrassed to bring their friends and relatives to their homes. They are often well-kept homes—indeed, palaces. If there are people loitering in the close mouth, residents do not want their friends and relatives to visit. In the old days they used to get a good Sunday. Now they will not get a Good Friday. I ask only that some consideration be given to residents of tenements.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Child Support Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

APPLICATIONS FOR DEPARTURE DIRECTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 2.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 3.

Mr. Mitchell: Amendment No. 1 concerns the time limit for making a departure application. The amendment deletes subsection (4) of new section 28A of the Child Support Act 1991 inserted by clause 1 and removes the time limit for applications. Applicants would be able to apply for a departure at any time.
I should remind the House of our original purpose in including a time limit for application for a departure direction. Our intention was to reduce as far as possible the period of uncertainty both for the person with care and for" the absent parent while there was still a possibility of a change to the amount of maintenance fixed by the assessment. We wanted to avoid delays in applications, but we always agreed that if there were good cause for a late application, it should be accepted. We felt that it would be unfair to the other party if either the absent parent or the person with care were able, perhaps after a considerable period, to request a departure direction that would affect the amount of maintenance due right back to the date when liability first started.
We accept that it would be unfair to exclude someone from any chance of a departure because he or she had failed to act promptly. We have therefore accepted a compromise solution. The proposal is that an application made later than 28 days from the issue of a maintenance assessment will be accepted even if there is no good cause for the delay. Any direction that results, however, will not be backdated beyond the date of application. We shall achieve that by bringing forward regulations under subsection (4) of new section 28G as introduced by clause 7.
Amendment No. 3 is consequential to No. 1. New section 281, as introduced by clause 9, contains a reference to subsection (4) of new section 28A, which has been removed by amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 3 removes the reference, which is now redundant. The amendments represent a sensible way forward and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Keith Bradley: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box in his new duties, especially as his first speech on the Child Support Bill is designed to tell the House that the Government are prepared, in effect, to accept an amendment that I moved in Committee, which would have had the same effect as the Lords amendment. It is pleasing that, as a result of the pressure that has been imposed in another place, the


Government have reconsidered their position. In the Minister's explanation, I think that I could hear my very words being spoken in justifying my amendment in Committee. I am pleased that a time limit will not be imposed. I am pleased also that the concession has belatedly been accepted by the Government.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I support the amendment. It is not only fathers, however, who are not paying maintenance.
I have written to the Department about one of my constituents who, because of certain circumstances, allowed her husband to look after her children. After 10 years, her circumstances have changed to the extent that she holds down a good job. At the same time, she looks after the children almost every night. In the evening, however, she takes the children to the father's house. During weekends, she takes the children and looks after them. She works early in the morning in a fruit market and is required to ensure that someone sends her children to school.
It appears to me that the father is only a glorified babysitter and that the mother is facing her duties. The Child Support Agency has ruled that she must pay a substantial proportion of her earnings to the husband. Surely that is extremely unfair. Perhaps the Minister will look into the matter with a view to future amendment of the Biil.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I shall bear in mind. If he writes to me with specific details, I shall consider the matter carefully.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position. I am sure that he will fill it with energy and commitment.
I ask the hon. Gentleman seriously to consider departures and time. I have four constituency cases at the Child Support Agency, of which two would have benefited from departures on Saturday. If we are not careful, those who are least able to afford the consequences will be caught, rightly up to a point, by maintenance orders. Those who are able to say that they are self-employed, for example, will avoid having to make payments. In those circumstances, the low-paid in second marriages will be in real trouble if a partner of the first marriage is able to announce that he or she is self-employed. Departures will be extremely important. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when thinking about implementation.

Ms Liz Lynne: I welcome the Minister to his new post, which I consider to be a poisoned chalice. I also welcome the amendments. I wish that the Government had seen fit to accept more amendments, especially those tabled in another place.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised important points about the workings of the departure system. She will know that we intend to pilot the departure system from next April. We are determined to get the system right, and all points will be carefully taken on board. I hope that the hon. Lady will approve of the piloting system as a means of achieving our goal.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 17, at end insert—

("(7) Schedule 4A has effect in relation to departure directions.")

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 4, 11 and 13.

Mr. Mitchell: These are all minor drafting amendments. Lords amendment No. 2 is a minor but necessary drafting repair, which inserts a new subsection into new section 28A, as introduced by clause 1 of the Bill. New schedule 4A of the 1991 Act is inserted by clause 1(2) of the Bill, but no mention of it is made—as it should be-by new section 28A of the 1991 Act, which is inserted in clause 1(1); the amendment rectifies that omission, and I commend it to the House.
5.30 pm
Lords amendment No. 4 resolves a minor technical inconsistency in the wording of clause 19, which occurred when an amendment was made to the clause on Report in the House of Commons. Clause 19 addresses the problem that the making of a deliberately spurious claim for benefit will allow a parent with care to come within the jurisdiction of the Child Support Agency, when in fact she will not be within its jurisdiction because she has a written maintenance agreement made before 5 April 1993 or a court order for maintenance. Subject to certain safeguards, the provision requires the Secretary of State to treat the application for child support maintenance as if it had not been made if he becomes aware that the benefit claim has been withdrawn or disallowed.
As originally drafted, clause 19 referred to "the person with care", but it later referred to the same individual as "the parent with care". The amendment corrects that minor inconsistency by using the phrase "the parent with care" in both instances.
Lords amendment No. 11 is a clarification of an earlier amendment introduced in Committee in the House of Commons. The Bill as originally drafted made provision for regulations made under paragraphs 4 and 5 of schedule 4D of the Bill as originally introduced to be subject to affirmative procedures. However, prompted by an Opposition amendment to reconsider the schedule, we judged that it would be right for all regulations made under it to be approved by both Houses before coming into effect.
It is possible that the amended wording of section 52(2) of the 1991 Act could be interpreted to mean that affirmative procedures apply only to regulations made under part I of schedule 4B, but that was neither the Opposition's intention nor ours. The proposed amendment would put the matter beyond doubt, and I commend it to the House.
Lords amendment No. 13 is a minor technical amendment that rectifies omissions from the 1991 Act, which currently refers only to "part I" and "part III" of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, and does not indicate to which schedule the parts belong. The amendment makes it clear that it is parts I and III of schedule I to the 1975 Act that are amended. The amendment also rectifies a similar omission from the


parallel amendment to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, where again the relevant schedule is not indicated. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the necessity for these drafting amendments, which we have pointed out before—especially in regard to Lords amendment No. 11, which clarifies the affirmative procedure. We have always said that, as Bills now rely so much on regulations, affirmative procedures should be adopted whenever possible, and with clarity.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 21

FEES FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTS

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 16, line 31, after ("out") insert

("(otherwise than under a direction or in response to a request)")

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 6.

Mr. Mitchell: Clause 21 provides for the Secretary of State to recover DNA test fees that he has paid in connection with a paternity dispute when the alleged parent either admits paternity or is adjudged to be the father by a court. Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6 restrict that power so that, when a court has ordered or requested that the test should be taken, the Secretary of State must apply to the court for the fees to be included in costs awarded to him if he is successful in establishing paternity.
The Government introduced the amendments in another place, because we recognised that it would not be right for officials acting for the Secretary of State to be able to recover DNA test fees when a judge also has discretion to award those fees as part of the court costs. Lords amendment No. 5 acknowledges the important principle that officials should not be able to bypass the courts' discretion to award costs, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Bradley: We welcome the concession made by the Government. Although the Minister said that they introduced the measure in another place, I think that it relied on an amendment that we tabled in Committee to alter the original Bill. Despite his apparent unwillingness to commend the Opposition's approach, however, we welcome the Government's belated recognition that this is a sensible approach to the recovery of fees.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 6 agreed to.

Clause 23

REPAYMENT OF OVERPAID CHILD SUPPORT MAINTENANCE

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 18, line 49, at end insert—

("(6A) For the purposes of this section any payments made by a person under a maintenance assessment which was not validly made shall be treated as overpayments of child support maintenance made by an absent parent.")

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 23 makes provision for the Secretary of State to reimburse overpaid maintenance in cases where it is not possible or appropriate to deal with the overpayment by means of a reduction in the current maintenance assessment. It was always the intention that overpayments arising in any circumstances should be covered by the provisions; it became clear, however, that the clause as drafted did not cover cases in which an overpayment arose as a result of an invalid assessment.
Invalid assessments can arise in a number of ways. For example, it may be established following a review or appeal that the Child Support Agency has no jurisdiction to make an assessment. Such cases might include those in which the absent parent was not habitually resident in the United Kingdom, there was no qualifying child or there was already a written maintenance agreement made before 5 April 1993. Cases might also arise in which the absent parent accepted paternity at the time the assessment was made, but subsequently disputed it and was found not to be the father.
We do not expect many such cases, but it has always been the intention for them to be included within the provisions of the clause. The amendment agreed to in another place ensures that that policy intention is fulfilled. Without it, absent parents who had overpaid because of invalid assessments might find it difficult to recover those payments. I hope that this House, too, will agree that the amendment is needed.

Mr. Bradley: May I seek clarification of one point? Will the Minister confirm that the amendment deals only with cases in which the CSA itself will refund the overpayment, and not circumstances in which maintenance has been paid to the parent with care and there is an expectation that the parent with care will be responsible for repaying the money to the absent parent? If that is so, we shall be happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. Mitchell: I think that I can go a long way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I can confirm that in cases in which an absent parent is reimbursed maintenance overpaid as a result of official error, careful consideration will be given to whether the parent with care should be required to repay that amount. All the facts surrounding the overpayment will be taken into account, and in cases in which it was due wholly to error by the CSA, it is unlikely that the parent with care would be required to repay.
It is, however, right that there should be flexibility to consider all cases. In many instances, for example, a number of different factors may have contributed to the overpayment. We do not therefore believe that it would be appropriate to legislate specifically for official-error repayments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 30

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 22, line 40, leave out ("paragraph 1") and insert

("paragraphs 1, 15A, 15B and 15C")

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 14.

Mr. Mitchell: Northern Ireland has its own child support scheme, under separate Northern Ireland legislation, paralleling the Great Britain scheme. Therefore, few provisions of the 1991 Act or of the Bill—which will become the Child Support Act 1995—apply to Northern Ireland. Those that do apply need to be listed in what will become subsection (6)(c) of section 30 of the 1995 Act.
Amendment No. 8 is a technical amendment that will enable the provisions in paragraphs 15A, 15B and 15C—inserted by Lords amendment Nos. 12, 13 and 14—to extend to Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 12 inserts paragraph 15A in schedule 3, which introduces a provision for help with travelling and other expenses for people who are required to attend child support commissioners' oral hearings. Such a provision already exists in social security legislation, but due to oversight, no similar arrangements were made in the Child Support Act 1991. The proposed new paragraph to be added to schedule 4 to the 1991 Act by means of the amendment to schedule 3 to the Bill, will achieve a consistent approach.
Our colleagues in Northern Ireland propose to introduce legislation along those lines for their own purposes in due course. Therefore, the amendment proposes an amendment to paragraph 8 of schedule 4 to the 1991 Act, to prevent provision for travel and other expenses from applying to Northern Ireland. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this is a worthwhile amendment, which rectifies an omission in the 1991 Act. When dealing with amendment No. 13, I explained the effect of the minor drafting amendment in paragraph 15B, which also needs to extend to Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 14 inserts paragraph 15C in schedule 3, which enables issues arising from the child maintenance bonus scheme to be considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It was never our intention to exclude the child maintenance bonus scheme from the scrutiny of the committee. The amendment makes sure that issues arising from that scheme, which is set up under clause 10 of the Child Support Bill, can be dealt with by the Social Security Advisory Committee. That is achieved by amending the definition of enactments in section 170(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 in relation to which the Social Security Advisory Committee can give advice and assistance, to include section 10 of the 1995 Act. A similar change is made to the definition of the Northern Ireland enactments on which the Social Security Advisory Committee can give advice and assistance, including on any enactment corresponding to section 10 of the 1995 Act.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Bradley: We welcome the amendments and the fact that travelling expenses will be paid for attendance at oral hearings. That brings such hearings into line with similar hearings under social security legislation. We also welcome the fact that the child maintenance bonus can be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee for its deliberations and comments. I hope that the valued advice that that committee gives to the Minister about the Child

Support Agency is accepted more readily than many of the committee's current recommendations on other social security matters.
I refer especially to the withdrawal of income support for mortgage interest payments. The committee was clear that the Government should not proceed with that, but despite that advice and a wealth of other information, the Government pig-headedly went ahead. I hope that in this case, they will listen carefully to the committee's advice. With that caveat, we welcome the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 29, line 33, at end insert—

(". In section 33 (liability orders), at the end add—
"(5) If the Secretary of State designates a liability order for the purposes of this subsection it shall be treated as a judgment entered in a county court for the purposes of section 73 of the County Courts Act 1984 (register of judgments and orders).")

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment gives the Secretary of State power to apply for a liability order to be entered in the register of county court judgments. Hon. Members may be aware that when an absent parent fails to pay maintenance liability and arrears have built up, the Child Support Agency will make every effort to reach an agreement to repay. If the absent parent refuses to reach such an agreement or reneges upon it, enforcement action must be considered.
In the majority of cases, the first stage in that process is likely to be a deduction from earnings order. However, when that fails or when it cannot be imposed—for example, when the absent parent is self-employed—the agency will ask a magistrates court to make a liability order. There is always a hearing before such an order is granted. A liability order can lead to distress action or to a garnishee or charging order. The amendment will allow an alternative course of action—the placing of the order on the register of county court judgments.
An entry in the register can lead to difficulties for an individual if he seeks credit for personal or business purposes. Experience in other areas has shown that, for that reason, the threat of an entry in the register is an incentive to debtors to pay their liabilities, especially if they are self-employed.
As I said, liability orders are needed only in cases where the absent parent has refused to pay his legal liability and will not co-operate on the repayment of arrears. Absent parents have it within their own hands to avoid a liability order and entry in the register. I stress that liability orders will not be entered automatically in the register. The absent parent will be given ample opportunity to change his mind and co-operate with the agency before it takes the step of having the liability order entered in the register of county court judgments.
Even before an application for a liability order is made to the magistrates court, the absent parent will be advised that if the order is granted, the debt may be entered on the register. When the liability order is granted, he will be given a further warning that registration will be


considered if arrangements to meet the liability have not been made within a reasonable period. Therefore, the absent parent can easily avoid the consequence of registration by co-operating and meeting his obligations on child maintenance even after a liability order has been obtained.
5.45 pm
It is regrettable that there are some obstructive absent parents who deliberately attempt to delay or avoid their responsibility to their children. It is right for us to do all that we can to ensure that parents with care receive promptly the payments to which they are entitled. Our experience of enforcement to date has been such that we think that the extra power would be useful. We took advice from those who regularly deal with such matters, as the House had wished us to do.
I hope that the House agrees that the amendment provides a further effective means of enforcement in cases where absent parents seek to evade their liabilities. I thank all those who have worked so hard in recent years to make what will be the Child Support Act 1995 more workable. That includes Opposition and Government Members, people outside who work on policy developments and people in the agency. I hope that the amendments and the Bill are evidence that the Government have listened to concerns and that they will give the assurance that the Government will continue to listen to representations about problems related to child support. Over the next couple of years, we hope to see improvements built upon the hard work that has been so patiently done by so many.

Mr. Bradley: No one would deny the Minister an opportunity for a reprise on the Child Support Agency. He is already looking 10 years younger than when he was last at the Dispatch Box. I am grateful for his explanation about the introduction of the liability orders. There is a clear need to be even-handed in our approach to the employed and the self-employed and we must ensure that, where possible, there is co-operation on these matters. I am grateful for the assurance that the liability order will not automatically be placed on the register, because the fact that the matter is now in legislation means that there is more likelihood of the self-employed person making his maintenance payments. In that context, we support the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 29, line 46, at end i n sert—

(". In section 46(5) (circumstances in which child support officer may give a reduced benefit direction), after "may" insert ", except in prescribed circumstances,".")

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
A parent with care who receives or whose partner receives a relevant benefit must give her authority for child maintenance to be sought from the absent parent if she is required to do so by the Secretary of State. If she refuses to give her authority without good cause, section 46 of the Child Support Act 1991 provides that her benefit may be reduced.
The amendment was tabled in another place in response to an Opposition amendment. It would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe the circumstances in which the benefit reduction should not apply, thus adding

flexibility to the provisions relating to reduced benefit deductions, which already allow for a direction to be suspended.
We listened to what was said in another place and are persuaded that where a parent with care or any child living with her is disabled, the benefit reduction may cause particular hardship. Therefore, we intend to introduce regulations as soon as practicable to exempt parents in such circumstances from the reduced benefit direction. The Government have also undertaken to introduce regulations at the same time, to suspend the reduced benefit direction in cases where the parent with care has deductions made from her income support—for example, to repay fuel debts or rent arrears. The benefit reduction is intended to make the parent with care think carefully about her decision not to co-operate, and the Government think that that is right. The amendment will mean that in specific circumstances, where the reduction could cause particular hardship, the reduced benefit direction will not be imposed. I invite hon. Members to accept the amendment.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the amendment. Clearly, however, we shall need to see the precise wording of the regulations to be able to determine how they will work in practice and who will be covered by them. Yet again, as we said on several occasions in Committee, we need to see and debate the details of the regulations before we can be certain that they cover the points raised not only in the other place, but in Committee.
We are pleased that the Bill is about to complete its passage. We were supportive in the way in which we tabled amendments to the Bill, particularly in terms of the departure direction, and we have facilitated its progress. However, we are still extremely disappointed that the Government have not yet agreed to another fundamental change—introducing a proper child care disregard to make the legislation truly put children first, by making an additional amount available to the parent with care who so desperately needs the money, rather than having all the money absorbed by the Treasury.
There is continuing concern, as shown in the evidence that is being compiled, about the operation of the agency. Recent evidence to the Public Accounts Committee was extremely disturbing in terms of what it showed about the amount being collected and the amount passing from the absent parent to the parent with care.
The Labour party will continue vigorously to monitor the operation of the Act, to ensure that the further amendments that will be required to ensure equity and fairness in the system are brought forward at the earliest opportunity. Although we have facilitated the passage of the Bill, that does not mean that we are satisfied with the operation of the agency or that we are satisfied that the legislation covers all the aspects necessary to ensure that the principle we support—that all parents should take responsibility for the upbringing of their children—is properly defined within legislation.
We shall continue to monitor and look carefully at all aspects of the Act, including the way in which it is administered through the agency, to ensure that there is even-handedness and fairness between the parent with care and the absent parent. We also need to ensure at the end of the day that the real beneficiaries of child support legislation are the children who so desperately need the


income to maintain a proper living standard and that the parents caring for them, especially those on income support, are not kept in poverty because of the Government's failure to recognise a proper child care disregard.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the Bill. I am sorry that we were unable to persuade him of the superior benefits of the child maintenance bonus. I have, however, heard what he has said—indeed, I heard it throughout the Committee stage when I was the Government Whip responsible for the Bill. I am, therefore, very familiar with his arguments.
The hon. Gentleman emphasises the importance of the administration of the agency getting better and rendering the service to the parent with care, the absent parent and the taxpayer that we all expect. That is a point that is well made and an aspiration with which hon. Members on both sides will agree.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to [Special Entry].

Lords amendments Nos. 13 and 14 agreed to.

Criminal Appeal Bill

Lords amendments considered.

New clause

RECOMMENDATION IN CASE OF LIFE SENTENCE FOR MURDER

Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 2, to insert the following new clause—

Recommendation in case of life sentence for murder

(". After section 11 of the 1968 Act insert—

"Appeal against recommendation

Appeal against recommendation in case of life sentence for murder.

11A.—(1) Where under section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 a court has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the minimum period which should elapse before he orders the release on licence of a person convicted of murder, the person may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the recommendation.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, an appeal under this section lies only with the leave of the Court of Appeal.

(3) If the court which made the recommendation grants a certificate that the case is fit for appeal under this section, an appeal under this section lies without the leave of the Court of Appeal.

(4) On an appeal under this section the Court of Appeal, if they consider that a different recommendation should be made, may—

(a) quash the recommendation; and
(b) in place of it declare the period which they recommend to the Secretary of State as the minimum period which should elapse before he orders the appellant's release on licence."")

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 46 and the Government motion to disagree.

Mr. Howard: The purpose of the motion is to remove a clause added to the Bill in the other place. The new clause was added by a majority of 16 on Report, against the advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The new clause relates to the mandatory life sentence imposed on those convicted of murder. As the House knows, in such cases it is open to the trial judge, when passing sentence, to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State about the minimum period of imprisonment to be served. The judge is not obliged to do so and in practice, formal recommendations are made only in a minority of cases. The new clause would provide a right of appeal against a recommendation made in open court.
When the amendment was debated in the other place, those who spoke in its favour argued that it would rectify an anomaly between discretionary and mandatory life sentences. They believed that it would introduce greater openness into the tariff-setting process and they claimed that it would have no bearing on the role of the Secretary of State, whom Parliament has entrusted with the final decision about tariff in mandatory life sentence cases.
I have considered the arguments with great care, in deference to the noble Lords who spoke in favour of the new clause. However, I remain firmly of the view that the proposed right of appeal is not only unnecessary, but would introduce anomalies of its own into the tariff-setting procedure.
I would like to start by explaining exactly how the tariff—which is the minimum period required for retribution and deterrence—is now set in mandatory life sentence cases. The procedures were substantially overhauled in 1993 following the judgment of the House of Lords in the Doody case. I hope that the House agrees that for the prisoner, the current system is anything but secretive—indeed, it is extremely open.
In every case where an offender is convicted of murder, the trial judge completes a detailed report on the background to the case. Whether or not he has made a formal recommendation in open court, the judge sets out his advice on the minimum period that should be served for retribution and deterrence. This report goes first to the Lord Chief Justice, who adds his own comments and then forwards the report to me. All this normally happens within two or three weeks of the conviction.
The whole of the report, apart from opinions about future risk, is disclosed to the prisoner, together with any other relevant papers, such as details of previous convictions, which will be put to Ministers in due course. This means that in practice, the prisoner sees everything that is relevant to the setting of the tariff.
The prisoner is given the opportunity to make any representations he wishes on the judicial recommendations and the other contents of the report. It is, however, made clear to him that the judicial views are advisory and that the tariff will be set by the Secretary of State. The prisoner's representations, along with the judicial report, are then submitted to Ministers, who make the decision on tariff. This is communicated to the prisoner.
If, after considering the judicial advice and the prisoner's representations, I decide that a tariff higher than that recommended by the trial judge is required for deterrence and retribution, the prisoner is given detailed reasons for that decision and these reasons are, of course, open to scrutiny by the courts by way of judicial review.
To summarise, the prisoner is aware of the judicial view and has the opportunity to make representations. He is then told of the tariff set. If there is any departure from the judicial advice, he is given detailed reasons. Once the prisoner has been informed of the tariff, we are prepared to disclose both the tariff and the judicial recommendation in individual cases to anyone who asks. The process cannot therefore be described as secretive—it could hardly be more open.
The present procedures are fair, open and sensible. They ensure that proper weight is accorded to the advice of the trial judge, who has heard all the evidence, and the Lord Chief Justice, who can bring his wider experience to bear either to confirm the trial judge's advice or to offer a different view. The prisoner has every opportunity to make informed representations before a decision is taken on tariff. The final decision rests with the Secretary of State, who has been entrusted with that responsibility by Parliament as guardian of the public interest. Like my predecessors, I shall always attach great weight to the

advice of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. But I am not bound by it, and in the public interest I can, and do on occasion, take a different view.
6 pm
Those arrangements are working well, and appear to command public confidence. They have recently been scrutinised and upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, and fully reflect the Doody judgment, which I mentioned earlier. Against that background, I now turn to examine the new clause and the right of appeal that it proposes.
First, it is argued that a right of appeal against recommendations is necessary to rectify an anomaly as between mandatory and discretionary life sentences. But there are differences between the two. In the case of discretionary life sentences, the trial judge is now required by statute to specify the "relevant part" of the sentence in open court. That is the minimum period of detention that the prisoner must serve, and there is a right of appeal against the judge's order as to the relevant part.
In the case of discretionary lifers, however, I have no power to modify the relevant part of the sentence or to substitute a different order. It is therefore entirely right that a judge's a decision should be subject to appeal—otherwise it would be unchallengeable.
On the other hand, a formal recommendation in mandatory life sentence cases is just that: a recommendation. It is only one aspect of the tariff-setting process. While I naturally give very careful consideration to any recommendation, and to the views of the Lord Chief Justice, the role of the judiciary in mandatory life sentence cases is purely advisory. The final decision is mine, and my decision is, of course, open to challenge by way of judicial review.
As the trial judge's recommendation is only advisory, I see no good reason for building an appeal procedure around it. The recommendation is only one part of the tariff-setting process and it is not binding, unlike the relevant part in discretionary life sentence cases. The perceived anomaly does not therefore exist.
I said earlier that the proposed right of appeal, instead of resolving an anomaly, would introduce anomalies of its own. For example, the proposed right of appeal would be available where a recommendation had been made in open court, which happens only in a minority of cases. That means that some mandatory life sentence prisoners would have a right of appeal against the trial judge's advice on tariff while others would not, depending on whether the judge made his recommendation in open court or in his report to me.
I am aware that the Lord Chief Justice has said that, if the amendment became law, he would issue a practice direction to judges advising them to use their discretion to make minimum recommendations in all but the most exceptional cases. But I do not believe that it is necessarily good practice to introduce statutory provisions that depend on a practice direction being issued before they can work sensibly. In any event, such a direction would not be binding on judges.
Even if judges made minimum recommendations in all cases—which is entirely a matter for the judiciary—I am not persuaded that there should be a right of appeal against them. Where there are avenues of appeal against sentence, they are, almost without exception, in cases


where the court has the final word on the subject—where the Executive has no power to substitute a different order. That is not the position here.
A further anomaly is that the Lord Chief Justice has indicated that, if a right of appeal were in place, he would no longer act independently in advising the Home Secretary on tariff lengths. Instead, he would sit in the Court of Appeal in any such case. That would deprive the Home Secretary of a second judicial opinion in cases where there was no appeal by the prisoner against the recommendation. That might be a considerable proportion of cases, and it would certainly include those cases where the judge had erred on the side of an unduly lenient recommendation. That means that, in precisely those cases where it is most necessary for the Secretary of State to consider imposing a longer tariff than that recommended, he would have no second judicial view to help him in reaching a decision.
The present arrangements for setting the tariff in mandatory life sentence cases were substantially overhauled following the judgment of the House of Lords in the Doody case and are working well. They are sensible, fair and open; and they offer the prisoner every opportunity to make informed representations before a decision is made on tariff. The present arrangements ensure that proper weight is accorded to judicial recommendations on tariff, but reflect the fact that Parliament has entrusted the final decision to the Secretary of State. For those reasons, they command public confidence in this highly sensitive category of cases.
I hope that the House will agree that it would be wrong to disturb those arrangements by introducing a new right of appeal that touches on only a part—and not the most significant part—of the tariff-setting process, and which would create anomalies rather than remove them.

Mr. John Hutton: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: I was about to sit down, but I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hutton: If the present arrangements are as satisfactory as the Home Secretary says they are, would he care to reflect on the fact that seven out of the 10 Law Lords voted for the amendment moved by the Lord Chief Justice and five former Law Lords also supported that amendment? There would therefore seem to be a judicial consensus that the picture is not as rosy as that painted by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Howard: To a large extent, there is a judicial consensus on the proposition that the whole of our arrangements for mandatory life sentences should be changed and that the Secretary of State should no longer have a role in that decision-making process. I understand that that is not the view of the Labour Front Bench. In a television interview not long ago, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) expressed his support—

Mr. Jack Straw: A radio interview.

Mr. Howard: I think that I saw him make the same proposition in a television interview as well. Be that as it may, his views on the subject are reasonably clear: like

me, he disagrees with the Law Lords' view to which the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) referred. Although, in supporting this amendment in the other place, those Law Lords disclaimed any intention of addressing, in this context and at this opportunity, the arrangements for mandatory life sentences, one must look at their arguments in the context of their opposition to the present arrangements as a whole. I differ from their views on the present arrangements as a whole, as does the hon. Member for Blackburn. That may be the best answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness.
For all the reasons that I gave before I gave way to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, I invite the House to reject the amendments proposed in another place.

Mr. Straw: The debate is not about the merits of the discretionary versus the mandatory system of life sentences. The Secretary of State anticipated me by referring to remarks which, according to the evidence that he gave on my behalf to the Select Committee on 29 March, I made on Radio 4's "Today" programme on 10 December last year. There is no reason why I should not have repeated those remarks on the television programme, except that I do not remember doing so. In that interview, I expressed my view about where the balance of advantage lay between mandatory and discretionary sentences, and that remains my view.
We shall look carefully, as I hope the Home Secretary will, at the report of the Select Committee that is currently considering this matter. We need to do that because, in the words of Baroness Blatch, the Minister of State, Home Office, speaking in the other place, there should be no suggestion that
the current procedures surrounding the setting of tariffs should remain immutable.
Having made a strong argument in the other place in favour of the system of discretionary life sentences, Baroness Blatch went on to say:
There may, however, be a case for greater transparency within those procedures where the general public is concerned.
May I say in parenthesis to the Secretary of State that I am grateful to him for the fact that he set out his views in a letter to me and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on Friday, because that was very helpful?
I approached this issue from the position of supporting in principle the mandatory life sentence system and I therefore considered the arguments that were advanced with some scepticism. Having done so, I am persuaded of the sense of the amendments moved by their Lordships.
On whether the system can be made more transparent, in the other place, the Minister of State accepted that there could be a case for greater transparency. The Secretary of State referred to the changes that have been made for the better since the Doody judgment. He went on to say that it was therefore wrong to categorise or describe the current system as secret, but that was not exactly the word that the learned Lord Chief Justice Lord Taylor used in the other place. There is a subtle difference here. He used, not "secret" but "secretive". He went on to say:
Justice in our system is administered in public. It is fundamental that proceedings which lead to conviction and sentence should, wherever practicable, be conducted openly and be subject to appeal. The current procedure involves a quite unnecessary and counter-productive deception on the public."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 June 1995; Vol. 564, c. 1478–84.]


The public, therefore, do not know what life means in the view of the trial judge when he makes his recommendation, unless he makes it in open court.
The Secretary of State sought to recognise some of the strength in the Lord Chief Justice's point when he said that the recommendation was disclosed to the prisoner, and that the prisoner can see everything. Since Doody, that has been true, although it was not true before. It would be interesting to know what view his Department took before that. I assume that it accepted the view that there should be no disclosure.
The Secretary of State also said that, once he as Home Secretary had made a recommendation, he would be prepared to disclose that recommendation and what had preceded it to anyone who asked. That is okay as far as it goes, but it represents not an administration of justice in public, but a willingness to disclose retrospectively the trial judge's recommendation if he does not make it in open court, the Lord Chief Justice's recommendation, and of course ultimately the Secretary of State's decision. On any analysis, however, that could not be regarded as an open administration of justice. A real distinction exists between the process as it operates at present, especially where no recommendation is made in public, and the process as the Lord Chief Justice has proposed it.
The Secretary of State suggested that, if there were a right of appeal against the trial judge's recommendation in open court, that would produce its own anomaly because, at present, the law does not require that recommendation and a recommendation could be made in open court at the discretion of the trial judge which was subject to appeal. Plainly, however, there could not be an appeal where no recommendation was made by the trial judge. In a sense, one then ends up with three different systems for settling life sentences—the discretionary, and then a split system of two rather than one mandatory system—rather than two.
Again, the Secretary of State sought to deal with that by picking up the point made by the Lord Chief Justice that that apparent consequential anomaly could be dealt with by a practice direction. As I understood him, the Secretary of State said that it was wrong for a practice direction essentially to make law.
We sought to deal with that issue head on in amendments that we tried to include in the Bill. We wanted to make it a requirement on the trial judge to make his recommendation in open court and for any practice directions to be subject to approval by the House. Should the Secretary of State have wished to achieve that position, he could have provided for amendments to be made in the other place so that, in all cases, recommendations were made in open court.
6.15 pm
On the merits of why recommendations should be made in open court, it is important that the offender has the right to challenge the judge's recommendation and to advance arguments against it in a judicial setting. I shall come on to the issue of whether that undermines in practice the Secretary of State's discretion. I do not accept that it does; neither did the Lord Chief Justice, who said that he as Lord Chief Justice was placed in a difficult position when it came to making recommendations about a convicted murderer. He said:
I hesitate to say the number of occasions on which he"—

the Home Secretary—
departs from the advice
of the Lord Chief Justice. He continued:
it would be quite unnecessary for him to seek the views of the Lord Chief Justice
in all cases. He goes on:
And may I make it clear that when I give my views under the present convention I have very little information. I have not been at the trial. I do not have the benefit of hearing representations and I have only a brief report from the trial judge."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 1995; Vol. 565, c. 538.]
I found most persuasive of all the Lord Chief Justice's recommendation to the other place that the system should be changed. Here was the Lord Chief Justice, in a sense at the centre of this process, saying that he did not think that the current arrangements were working well because he did not have the benefit of the representation that could be made in open court about the length of sentence.
The Attorney-General should also have the right to make representations against what the Secretary of State rightly describes as a too lenient sentence. The phrase that he used was that the Home Secretary would be deprived of the Lord Chief Justice's advice in cases where there was no appeal. He was especially concerned about cases where the trial judge had, in the view of the Lord Chief Justice, been unduly lenient. There is an argument about whether the Lord Chief Justice would not be able to make recommendations in such a case. I cannot understand that argument. If there has been no appeal, but the Home Secretary still has, as he will have, a legitimate interest in making his own judgment on the merits of the case and in the public interest, about the appropriate sentence, the Lord Chief Justice's position, as someone who will give internal advice, could not be compromised by the possibility that he would sit on the appeal as, by definition, there is no appeal in that case.
We are dealing with an issue not only of openness, but—here we are completely in agreement—of maintaining public confidence in the system by which prisoners are sentenced and serve sentences for the most heinous of cases, for which there is rightly the greatest public revulsion. It would be appropriate therefore for the Attorney-General to have the right of appeal against the recommendation made by the trial judge. I know what the argument was in the other place against that, but I do not accept it.
The changes that the Lord Chief Justice has recommended would not only improve the administration of justice, which is often seen, wrongly, exclusively in terms of the offender and the prosecution; it would improve the administration of justice from the point of view of the victim's family, who are the victims as the victim has, by definition, died.
That point was made by the national chair of Victim Support, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, in a letter which was sent to the Clerk of the Home Affairs Select Committee on 28 March 1995. He said that there had been much discussion when Victim Support gave oral evidence about who should set the tariff. He said:
Victim Support and SAMM both agreed in favour of the judge determining and announcing the period to be spent in custody.
As far as I can judge, the argument was not about discretionary sentences versus mandatory ones, but whether the recommendation should be made in open court. Whatever the argument, there is no doubt that Victim Support wants that recommendation to be made in


open court. I believe it is right, because there is every advantage in the system being as open as conceivably possible from the point of view of the victim's family.
Is it appropriate for there to be an appeal within the judicial system against what is just a recommendation to the Secretary of State, not a decision? The argument advanced by the Secretary of State today was that made by the Minister of State in another place on 8 June. She said:
I cannot accept the argument that a right of appeal ought to exist against those … recommendations. Where there are avenues of appeal against sentence they are, almost without exception, in cases where the court has the final word on the subject: where the Executive has no power to substitute a different order.
That argument had been shot down in flames earlier by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, who spoke in support of the proposed changes. He said that another of his noble Friends had suggested there was an important distinction between a judge who was making a decision and a judge who merely made a recommendation. He accepted that that was a distinction, but he went on to say:
but it does not go to the merit of this amendment because at present the recommendation for deportation which a judge makes is only a recommendation. It is not binding on the Home Secretary."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 June 1995; Vol. 564, c.1479–82.]
He went on to say, however, that within the statute there is a right of appeal in respect of a recommendation for deportation.
How much more appropriate it would be if the long period of years that a defendant may have to serve in custody as a result of a recommendation about the length of the term he should serve was also subject to the right of appeal. Given that Lord Taylor spoke before Baroness Blatch, I am surprised that she did not pick up his argument and answer it.
It is usual for appeals to be made in court against decisions, not recommendations. The example offered by Lord Taylor reveals that there are cases, quite correctly in my view, when the Secretary of State exercises the judgment that Parliament has given him because wider considerations than simply narrow judicial matters exist. That is one of the arguments in favour of the mandatory system. Despite that, however, Parliament has also decided that that judgment is consistent with the Secretary of State having the benefit of advice, determined through a judicial process, of both the trial judge and a judge at the Court of Appeal.
I am the first to admit that this is not an easy matter. I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has thought long and hard about it, as I have—I hope that is apparent from what I have said. I am sorry that we are on different sides of the argument because it is important on such issues that we should, as far as possible, reach a consensus, particularly at a time when the argument between different sides of the House about capital punishment is largely over.
I have studied the matter with great care and I believe that their Lordships were correct; I therefore urge the House to resist the motion moved by the Secretary of State.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I apologise to the Home Secretary for missing his opening remarks. That

apology is made on behalf of British Rail, whose train, which customarily takes four hours to travel to London, took eight hours instead. I left the train while an argument ensued about which operating company was responsible for the track to which the train might be diverted. That argument seemed further to delay the train, so I fled the scene at Alexandra Palace and resorted to other means of transport.
I approach the matter from a different standpoint from that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I disagree with him about the value of the mandatory life sentence. It is undesirable in principle for the Executive to impose sentences and visibly unsatisfactory in practice when it leads to problems as diverse as excessively lenient sentences and those arising from the Private Clegg case. This is not the occasion for that argument.
Suffice it to say, the hon. Member for Blackburn, arguing from the rather conservative standpoint of one who does not want to change the current position, nevertheless demonstrated that it is possible to support the Lords amendment whether one approves or disapproves of the mandatory life sentence. I approach the argument from a different standpoint. The particular value of the argument put by the hon. Member for Blackburn is that it underlines to Conservative Members that it is possible to support the Lords amendment while nevertheless wishing the mandatory life sentence to continue to be imposed.
I do not want the mandatory life sentence to remain in operation and I find myself in agreement with the Law Lords who were leading figures in tabling the amendment. My reason for supporting the amendment is slightly different from that put by those Law Lords. If we are to have a system of Executive determination of sentence it should be an open one, so that we can know what is happening at each stage.
Lord Ackner argued strongly that the Government's primary reason for resisting their Lordships amendment was the inconvenience caused when it became clear in which cases the Home Secretary had overturned strong judicial opinion, whether in favour of a shorter sentence or a longer one.
It is desirable that the process should be an open one. The existence of a process of appeal is a natural part of such openness. That particular proposal commanded support from many in the other place as well as the overwhelming support of members and ex-members of the judiciary, for example, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone among others.
The arguments adduced against the change range from those that are merely arguments about Government convenience and the avoidance of embarrassment to those that construct a delicate constitutional distinctiveness for the process of Executive decision of sentences. It is argued that that mechanism is so unique that it is not appropriate to subject it to a process of appeal.
I do not accept either of those types of argument and I urge my hon. Friends to support the noble Lords in the sensible change that they have made to the Bill.

Mr. Howard: I can be brief as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was kind enough to say that I had anticipated most of the arguments that he intended to put. I believe that I did so, and therefore I do not propose to repeat them.
The issue of openness was dwelt upon by the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I do not believe that the amendment has anything to do with that. I gave an account of our existing system. There are ways in which it could be made even more open. It is true, as the hon. Member for Blackburn said, that there could be a requirement on the trial judge to say in every case in open court what his recommendation would be. Quite how helpful that would be, bearing in mind that that recommendation is only the first part of a three-part process, I am far from clear. That is something that could be changed. Perhaps that proposal will be recommended in the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I know not. We should have to look at such a proposal with great care in the context of that Select Committee report. But that is an entirely separate matter from the right of appeal against that recommendation which is what the amendments are essentially about. It is that right of appeal to which I object, for the reasons which I gave earlier, and in particular because I cannot see the sense or logic in having a right of appeal against a recommendation that is the first stage of a multi-stage process.
The decision made by the Secretary of State on these matters is not immune from the scrutiny of the courts. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed seemed to give the impression—no doubt inadvertently—that that was so. But it is not because the decision of the Secretary of State is subject to judicial review. That is an important safeguard and it is right that it should be there. It is not the case under the existing arrangements that the decision of the Secretary of State cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny. It can be, and it is.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Blackburn about the precedent for an appeal against an advisory decision—the deportation order recommendation—with respect to the hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chief Justice, that is significantly different. The recommendation of deportation is part of the order of the court and unless such a recommendation is made, the Secretary of State cannot deport on the ground that the person concerned has been guilty of a criminal offence. There may be other grounds on which the Secretary of State can deport, but if the Secretary of State wished to deport solely because that criminal offence was committed, he could not do so unless there had been a recommendation to that effect by the judge.
So although it is true that in one sense that recommendation is advisory, it plays a much more significant role in the decision-making process in that context because it is a sine qua non of the Secretary of State's decision, than does the trial judge's recommendation of what the tariff should be, which is just the first stage in the multi-stage process which I have described.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point. I accept that there is some distinction, but I do not think that in principle there is any serious distinction. In the other place, Baroness Blatch said words to the effect that there were no circumstances in which a recommendation from a trial judge was subject to a judicial process of appeal where the final decision was made by the Secretary of State. In deportation situations, it

is a recommendation—albeit the Secretary of State cannot act without it—it can be the subject of appeal and the Secretary of State has, as I understand it, complete discretion as to what to do about it.

Mr. Howard: He does not have complete discretion as to what to do about it because, as I said a moment ago, he cannot deport without that recommendation.

Mr. Straw: He can confirm or reject it.

Mr. Howard: He can confirm or reject it, but if there is no recommendation, he cannot deport. It is for that reason that the deportation recommendation is part of the order of the court and is very significantly different in effect from the kind of advisory recommendation which we are discussing.
For all those reasons, therefore, in addition to those which I gave earlier, I invite the House to reject the amendments. They would add a quite unnecessary stage to procedures that are on the whole working well. I do not believe that the case for them has been made out and I invite the House to disagree with the Lords in the amendments.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 225.

Division No. 205]
[6.33 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Colvin, Michael


Ashby, David
Congdon, David


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Cran, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bates, Michael
Day, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dicks, Terry


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Booth, Hartley
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Elletson, Harold


Bowis, John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Fishburn, Dudley


Butcher, John
Forth, Eric


Butler, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butterfill, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger






French, Douglas
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fry, Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gallie, Phil
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, Sir George
Marlow, Tony


Garnier, Edward
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gummer, Fit Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, Rt Hon. William
Nichcolls, Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hannam, Sir John
Ottaway, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Page, Richard


Harris, David
Paice, James


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Patrick, Sir Irvine


Hawkins, Nick
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Pawsey, James


Hayes, Jerry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heald, Oliver
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hendry, Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Hicks, Robert
Robathan, Andrew


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Horam, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Sackville, Tom


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hunter, Andrew
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jack, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jenkin, Bernard
Shersby, Sir Michael


Jessel, Toby
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Spink, Dr Robert


Key, Robert
Spring, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sproat, Iain


Knapman, Roger
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Steen, Anthony


Knox, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Stern, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stewart, Allan


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Streeter, Gary


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sumberg, David


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sweeney, Walter


Legg, Barry
Sykes, John


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lidington, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lightbown, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Thomason, Roy


Lord, Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Luff, Peter
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


MacKay, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Trend, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Trotter, Neville





Twinn, Dr Ian
Wiggm, Sir Jerry


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Willetts, David


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wilshire, David


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Waterson, Nigel
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Watts, John



Whitney, Ray
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Bowen Wells.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dobson, Frank


Adams, Mrs Irene
Donohoe, Brian H


Ainger, Nick
Dowd, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Etherington, Bill


Ashton, Joe
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Austin-Walker, John
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
Reid, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foulkes, George


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fraser, John


Bell, Stuart
Fyfe, Maria


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galbraith, Sam


Bennett, Andrew F
Galloway, George


Benton, Joe
Gapes, Mike


Berry, Roger
Garrett, John


Betts, Clive
George, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Gerrard, Neil


Boateng, Paul
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bradley, Keith
Godsiff, Roger


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Graham, Thomas


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Byers, Stephen
Gunnell, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell-Savours, D.N.
Henderson, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hinchliffe, David


Church, Judith
Hoey, Kate


Clapham, Michael
Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hutton, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Illsley, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Ingram, Adam


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corston, Jean
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cousins, Jim
Jamieson, David


Cox, Tom
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cummings, John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn, (Clwyd South West)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)



Darting, Alistair
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Khabra, Piara S


Denham, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dixon, Don
Kirkwood, Archy






Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Lewis, Terry
Primarolo, Dawn


Litherland, Robert
Purchase, Ken


Livingstone, Ken
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Randall, Stuart


Loyden, Eddie
Raynsford, Nick


Lyme, Ms Liz
Rendel, David


McAllion, John
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum
Rooney, Terry


McKelvey, William
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


McLeish, Henry
Rowlands, Ted


Maclennan, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


McMaster, Gordon
Sedgemore, Brian


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


MacShane, Denis
Short, Clare


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maddock, Diana
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mahon, Alice
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Marek, DrJohn
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spellar, John


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Maxton, John
Stevenson, George


Meale, Alan
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michael, Alun
Straw, Jack


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milbum, Alan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Timms, Stephen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Rhodri
Touhig, Don


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Trimble, David


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wareing, Robert N


Mowlam, Marjorie
Watson, Mike


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Winnick, David


Olner, Bill
Wise, Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wright, Dr Tony


Pearson, Ian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pendry, Tom



Pike, Peter L
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. George Mudie and


Prentice, Gordon (Pende)
Mrs. Barbara Roche.

Question accordingly agreed to.

New clause

EVIDENCE

Lords amendment: No. 2, to leave out clause 4 and insert the following new clause—

(".—(1) In section 23 of the 1968 Act (evidence)—

(a) in subsection (1) (power to receive evidence etc.), for paragraph (c) substitute—

"(c) receive any evidence which was not adduced in the proceedings from which the appeal lies.",
(b) for subsection (2) (duty to receive evidence in certain circumstances) substitute—

"(2) The Court of Appeal shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have regard in particular to—

(a) whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;
(b) whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;

(c) whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings from which the appeal lies on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and
(d) whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings.", and

(c) in subsection (3), after "any" insert "evidence of a".

(2) In section 25 of the 1980 Act (evidence)—

(a) in subsection (1) (power to receive evidence etc.), for paragraph (c) substitute—

"(c) receive any evidence which was not adduced at the trial.",
(b) for subsection (2) (duty to receive evidence in certain circumstances) substitute—

"(2) The Court of Appeal shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have regard in particular to—

(a) whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;
(b) whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
(c) whether the evidence would have been admissible at the trial on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and
(d) whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence at the trial.", and

(c) in subsection (3), after "any" insert "evidence of a".")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 34, 47, 48 and 52 to 54.

Mr. Baker: The amendments are all concerned with the receipt of fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, and by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal and the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, which operate the same procedures. At present, section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 contains two separate provisions on the receipt of evidence on appeal. The relationship between them is somewhat complex and has given rise to difficulties for the Court of Appeal. It has created room for argument in appeal hearings about whether the court should receive evidence under the narrow, qualified duty in subsection (2) or under its general discretion in subsection (1).
We have therefore taken the opportunity to devise amendments to improve the construction of section 23. They are intended to provide a unified test for the receipt of fresh evidence which reflects the current practice of the Court of Appeal. We intend that the amendments should not in any way narrow the scope for the receipt of fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal. The Lord Chief Justice, when supporting the amendments in another place, confirmed that they would in no way lessen the likelihood of fresh evidence being received on appeal. He said that he could think of no occasion on which evidence received under the present section 23 would not be received under the new section proposed in the new clause 4.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

POWERS EXERCISABLE BY REGISTRAR

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 5, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("but") in line 17 and insert

("No variation of the conditions of bail granted to an appellant may be made by the registrar unless he is satisfied that the respondent does not object to the variation;")

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a minor amendment that is designed to clarify the drafting of clause 6.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

APPEALS IN CASES OF DEATH

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 33, leave out
("by virtue of paragraph (a) above")
and insert

("in relation to his case by virtue of paragraph (a) above or by a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission")

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 9, 45 and 49 to 51.

Mr. Baker: These are minor and technical amendments that are designed to ensure that the provision in clause 7, allowing appeals to be conducted on behalf of deceased persons, operates smoothly.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 13

GENERAL PROVISIONS ABOUT REFERENCES

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 10, line 29, leave out from ("verdict") to end of line 2 on page 11 and insert

(", finding or sentence shall not be made under any of sections 9 to 12 unless—

(a) the Commission consider that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made,
(b) the Commission so consider—

(i) in the case of a conviction, verdict or finding, because of an argument, or evidence, not raised in the proceedings which led to it or on any appeal or application for leave to appeal against it, or
(ii) in the case of a sentence, because of an argument on a point of law, or information, not so raised, and
(c) an appeal against the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence has been determined or leave to appeal against it has been refused.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1)(b)(i) or (c) shall prevent the making of a reference if it appears to the Commission that there are exceptional circumstances which justify making it.")

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 11.

Mr. Baker: When setting out in clause 13 the broad criteria for the referral of a conviction, verdict or finding

by the commission to the courts, we have sought to enable the commission to refer cases when there appears to be a real possibility of a subsequent appeal succeeding and there is some new element, whether argument or evidence, for the courts to consider but, when setting reasonable criteria for references, we are conscious of the need to ensure that references are not precluded in circumstances in which injustice would result.
Amendment No. 10, therefore, enables the commission to refer a conviction, verdict or finding in the exceptional case where the existing criterion for there to be argument or evidence not already raised in any relevant proceeding is not met, but there are, nevertheless, compelling reasons that justify its referral.
Amendment No. 11 is purely a drafting amendment.

Mr. Alun Michael: It is always entertaining to hear a Minister urge the House to agree to something that he resisted in an earlier debate. We welcome Lords amendment No. 10 because it allows some flexibility in the rules which govern whether a case can be referred to the Court of Appeal.
In the Bill as drafted originally, there had to be argument or evidence that had not been raised previously in any way, shape or form. In Committee, we suggested an amendment to allow consideration when the argument or the evidence had not been raised adequately—which is another way of putting the amendment that is before us today. We touched on the issue again on Report on 26 April. Interpretation by the Court of Appeal changes over time. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has affected how courts look at admissions of guilt, and mistakes by lawyers can mean that an issue is not argued fully.
I welcome the Lords amendments, but I note that such matters may be considered in exceptional circumstances. We have always believed that such appeals should be catered for in exceptional circumstances and that they should be allowed to reach the Court of Appeal.
I cannot let the Minister's authoritative comments on Lords amendment No. 10 pass without pointing out that, basically, we told him so.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 18

POWER TO REQUIRE APPOINTMENT OF INVESTIGATING OFFICERS

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 14, line 38, leave out
("such other police force as the chief officer thinks fit")
and insert

("another police force selected by the chief officer")

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will he convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21.

Mr. Baker: Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 21 empower the commission to approve or disapprove the outside force to be brought in to investigate any case at its request.

Mr. Michael: As with a number of other Lords amendments, Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 21 deal with points that Labour Members raised in Committee and on


Report. Their importance should not come as any surprise to Ministers. A letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers sent to the Home Office on 9 May 1994 said that it would be unwise for West Midlands police to investigate West Yorkshire while the West Yorkshire police were investigating the West Midlands on a different matter. During debate in this place, the Minister suggested that that was not a problem and I said at the time that I believed that he was wrong.
The Minister had not understood the limitations on the powers. Clause 18(4)(6) does not give the commission the power to break the arrangement whereby the West Midlands force investigates the West Yorkshire force and vice versa. The Bill empowered the commission only to get an outside officer to investigate and it was then up to the chief officer to choose the other force. That was made clear in debate on 26 April this year.
In Committee in another place, the Government accepted the case. Baroness Blatch moved an amendment to that effect and said:
Although such a scenario"—
as we depicted in this place—
seems a little improbable, not least because our current experience would suggest that an outside force is needed in relatively few cases, we nevertheless think it best to enable the commission … to approve or disapprove the outside force … to be brought in".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 1995; Vol. 564, c. 1606.]
I am glad of the confirmation that we were right. The Lords amendment is a small step in the right direction as it ensures that there is objectivity and transparency in the investigation of such cases.
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall deal with an allied matter and, therefore, not speak to the next group of Lords amendments. I ask the Minister to clarify one other matter in relation to investigations. Some observers believe that a major concession has been given and they are not sure whether it goes as far as they think. Baroness Blatch said:
the commission does not need special provision in order to direct and supervise its own staff. Nor does it need such provision in order to engage the services of an outsider—for example, an accountant—to investigate a case for it".
What Baroness Blatch said goes further than the Lords amendments in this group and the next. She said:
the Government intend that the commission should have its own
unit of experienced investigators to advise it and also, as the Noble Lord suggested, to play a part in the direction of investigations".
That is an important statement, which relates to matters that the Opposition raised on a number of occasions in this House. Baroness Blatch continued:
The Government's position has always been that the commission can employ investigative staff and can engage investigative expertise."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 1995; Vol. 565, c. 578–81]
In contrast, in a debate in this House, the Minister gave no hint of a concession when he rejected our new clauses 1 and 2, saying that they
would enable the commission to draw on in-house investigators or on those that it has contracted in, as well as on investigating officers appointed at its request by the appropriate chief constable. They would, in effect, give the commission power to appoint an in-house investigations unit to make inquiries … I am not convinced that creating an in-house investigative capacity would be helpful or necessary."—[Official Report, 26 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 887.]
Will the Minister now tell us who is right? Does he support the interpretation of Baroness Blatch in another place? Do the Lords amendments have the effect that we

looked for but which the Minister rejected during the debate here? Do Baroness Blatch's words give the correct interpretation of the Government's intentions—yes or no? I look forward to the Minister's response.

7 pm

Mr. Beith: I had some questions on the same point, which I intended to raise during the debate on Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 24. If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I might still do so.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: If you are to allow us to debate also the next group of amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the convenience of the House, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) rightly said—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It must be clear that proceeding with the debate in such a way meets with the general wishes of the House.

Mr. Beith: It might be of assistance if I speak now to the next group of Lords amendments. It is an odd way to proceed, but I shall happily do so for the convenience of the House.
The assurances that Baroness Blatch gave in relation to Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 24—or to their equivalent amendments in the Lords—were, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, of considerable significance. The amendments add to the Bill usefully, and the assurances that Baroness Blatch gave put them in an even stronger light.
She said:
I said in my response to the amendment that the Government intend that the commission should have its own unit of experienced investigators to advise it and … to play a part in the direction of investigations.
She said that she understood that investigations can be undertaken by the commission, and added that
The Government's position has always been that the commission can employ investigative staff and can engage investigative expertise."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 1995; Vol. 565, c. 581.]
I have to say that that was not the impression conveyed on Second Reading or in Committee in this House.
My view was that, whereas in most circumstances it would be satisfactory for the commission to make use of a police force to carry out investigations, it might occasionally be better to make other arrangements or to have a unit of investigators on the commission's own staff. Confidence in the commission would be greater if that were the case from the start. It will be very good news if, as seems to have become clear during our proceedings, that is to be the case. I hope that it is, and that the combination of Baroness Blatch's assurances and Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 24 may achieve that objective. I should be grateful to hear that confirmed by the Minister.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: We have transgressed the rules once, and you are allowing us to do it again, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Lords amendments grouped with Lords amendment No. 17 arise out of concerns expressed in the House by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and others that the commission's powers under clause 18 might be insufficient to enable it to prevent, where it thought it desirable, two forces investigating one another


on behalf of the commission. We considered that scenario to be a little improbable, not least because of our current experience, which suggests that an outside force is needed in relatively few cases, but we nevertheless think that it is right to give the commission the necessary powers, hence the Lords amendments.
On Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 24, questions arose in Committee and in another place as to whether the commission would be invariably bound to use the police or some other public body to investigate possible miscarriages of justice. The purpose of the amendments is to make it clear that the commission is not constrained in that way. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked whether the commission members will undertake major investigations themselves. When it comes to what might be called police-type inquiries—interviewing witnesses, retracing car journeys and so forth—the Government expect the commission as a rule to use clauses 18 and 19 to obtain assistance from the police or from another public body.
The Government have no intention of funding a team in the commission whose job would be to operate as a mini-police force, duplicating work which could, and should, be done by the police or other public bodies under clauses 18 and 19, but we accept that, exceptionally, the commission might want one of its staff or someone else to do investigative work such as would otherwise be done by a police officer under clause 19. No one has provided a convincing example of such a case, but it could, theoretically, happen.
It is much more likely that the investigations that the commission will undertake will not require police experience or expertise—for example, telephone inquiries, getting hold of copies of relevant papers and obtaining expert analyses and opinions. That is how we envisage the commission operating in practice.

Mr. Michael: I return to the words used by Baroness Blatch, who stated specifically that

the Government intend that the commission should have its own unit of experienced investigators to advise it and also … to play a part in the direction of investigations".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 1995; Vol. 565, c. 581.]
That comment was specific, and the Minister now seems to be contradicting it—as his colleagues did in the Commons last time around. It is important for us to know whether the Minister has accepted the argument that we have stressed strongly, as Baroness Blatch seems to have done, or whether he continues to insist on the commission's not having any sort of body, however small, of competent investigators. That is an important point. The Minister has not dealt with the comments of Baroness Blatch. Which Minister is telling us what will happen?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is taking the word "investigation" into some magic fields. I have made it clear that we do not envisage the commission carrying out large-scale investigations. We envisage it doing investigative work from time to time but, generally, the right people to investigate will be the police or other bodies. There will be investigative work that it might be appropriate for the commission's unit to do, such as advising the commission, helping others direct and supervise investigations and liaising with investigations. Those are the types of investigations that the unit in the commission can do, rather than the large-scale investigations that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 45 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Lords amendment No. 46 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 47 to 55 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Alun Michael and Mrs. Barbara Roche; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

To withdraw immediately.

Representation of the People

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Government Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualification of Members) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
For many years, our electoral law restricted the right to vote and to be a candidate in any election to British and other Commonwealth citizens and to citizens of the Irish Republic. However, the treaty on European Union conferred certain electoral rights on Union citizens, which extends our franchise further. The rights conferred by the treaty are to vote and to be able to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and in local government elections. Regulations approved by Parliament last year conveyed into our domestic legislation rights with regard to European parliamentary elections and, accordingly, Union citizens resident in this country were eligible to participate in the European parliamentary elections held in June 1994. Of course, British citizens living abroad in the European Community enjoyed similar rights.
The draft regulations deal with the second aspect of electoral rights contained in the treaty and they accordingly extend to resident citizens of other member states the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in local government elections.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the issue is rather complex, will the Minister clarify the position of Gibraltar? Did Gibraltar residents qualify previously because Gibraltar was allegedly part of the Commonwealth although it was not, or do they now qualify because they are part of the European Union? Will the Minister explain to my constituents whether Gibraltar residents who are British citizens had the right before, will still have it or will perhaps never have it?

Mr. Baker: I hope that, before the end of the debate, I shall be able to give my hon. Friend an answer about Gibraltar but, if he will allow me to proceed, I shall do what I can before then.
Progress has been reported to Parliament by means of the usual explanatory memoranda. One explanatory memorandum was submitted by the Home Office on 22 April last year, and supplementary memoranda were submitted on 18 May and 30 November. The matter was debated by European Standing Committee B on 19 July 1994 when the Committee endorsed the Government's main policy objectives.
One of those policy objectives was to avoid the somewhat bureaucratic system of information exchange which is required under the directive governing European parliamentary elections. Our participation in that information exchange at the time of the 1994 European parliamentary election confirmed us in our view that it served little purpose. The directive on local government elections does not contain the same requirements, which is much to be welcomed. During the review of the European parliamentary directive—a process that has just begun—we shall be seeking to have the requirements for information exchange removed or at least reduced.
The regulations are being brought forward now because the directive stipulates that member states shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive before 1 January 1996.

Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Minister tell the House whether there is a set timetable for implementation by other European member states?

Mr. Baker: Other European member states have, like us, declared to which elections the provisions shall apply, and they are subject to the same time limit as us—1 January 1996. That means that we must have the procedures in place in time to enable Union citizens to be registered during this autumn's electoral canvass.
Although representation of the people legislation is complex and detailed, the draft regulations are pretty simple. They extend local government electoral rights to resident Union citizens by means of simple amendments to the nationality criteria contained in the Representation of the People Act 1983. Draft regulation 3 effects the necessary changes with regard to the right to stand as a candidate, and regulation 4 deals with the right to vote. The general principle of the relevant article of the treaty is that non-national residents in a member state should be treated, for electoral purposes, in the same way as nationals of that state.
The simple amendments to which I referred are all that is necessary to give full effect to our treaty obligations, and they do no more and no less than that. We are not introducing any requirements of citizens of other member states that we do not require of our own citizens, and no changes are made to the way in which previously enfranchised nationalities are dealt with. That is in line with the welcome provision that allows the existing laws of individual member states to apply as far as possible.
I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that, in the case of our local government elections, our existing law can continue to apply unchanged. To register a vote, for example, a European Union citizen must have been resident in Great Britain on the qualifying date of 10 October, or 15 September for Northern Ireland, in exactly the same way as British, other Commonwealth, or Irish citizens. Citizens of other member states who wish to be candidates in local government elections must conform to the nomination procedures to which candidates have conformed hitherto.
The majority of the draft regulations are set out in the two schedules, where consequential amendments are made to primary and secondary legislation. I hope that the House will agree to them.

Dr. Kim Howells: The Opposition extend a guarded welcome to the extension of the right to vote in local elections in this country to all citizens of member states of the European Community on the same terms as Commonwealth citizens. We shall extend a warmer welcome when there is clear evidence that British citizens living in other European Union countries enjoy similar privileges, especially in countries such as Germany, where there have been long-standing constitutional objections to extending the franchise to non-nationals.
It is worth recalling for a moment that, before the 1990s, voting rights for non-nationals existed only in Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands. In Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal, only nationals had the right to vote.
The movement of European Union citizens across intra-Union frontiers has grown apace, especially in the past five years or so. An estimated 5 million European Union citizens may be enfranchised by the regulations if fairly applied by each member state. I hope that the Government will reassure the House and the British people, however, that the new regulations will be fairly applied, and that some of the Governments of countries that I listed earlier, such as the Germans and the French, will not deny the right to vote in local elections to UK nationals residing in those countries. Well in excess of 150,000 of our nationals reside in Germany and France, while we provide that right to 100,000 Germans and French nationals who reside in the UK.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate; I was downstairs in a meeting.
The Minister may well have made the argument already, but I understand that, when we passed the legislation for the Maastricht treaty through the House, automatically other EU citizens in this country had the right to vote in our elections. Is that not the case with regard to UK citizens in other EU countries? If not, why the difference?

Dr. Howells: No. As I understand it—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—it was not regarded as part of the competence of either the Commission or the European Parliament to grant that, and it needed to be debated separately in order to become a right. It is important that we understand that distinction because the House may wish to know that, at 1 January 1992, about 410,000 UK nationals were living outside the UK but in the European Union.
We welcome the fact that the Home Office had effectively issued three consultation papers, in the form of supplementary explanatory memoranda, on that subject during 1994, because it raises issues that go to the heart of our democratic system. Indeed, if our response as a Parliament had not been the right one, we might have sent to Brussels dangerous and misleading messages about our willingness to cede to the Commission and to the European Parliament the competence to make decisions about aspects of home affairs that, Opposition Members believe, lie entirely within the competence of this Parliament.

Mr. Marlow: Am I right or am I wrong in saying that EU citizens in this country were able to vote in our local elections in May of this year, and that that had nothing to do with the European Parliament, the Commission or any European institution, but was a result of the House having passed into law the provisions of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986? If it happened here, why did it not happen for UK citizens in other EU countries?

Dr. Howells: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right. I do not believe that European Union nationals

living in this country had the right to vote in local elections last May, which is the reason why we are considering this legislation now. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not confuse voting in local elections last May with voting for the European Parliament, which European nationals living in this country certainly have a right to do.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the argument that I wanted to make before I got off my knees. EU citizens living in this country had the right to vote because of legislation that we passed in this Parliament; they had the right to vote in the most recent European elections, as British citizens did in their countries. We are now carrying out a similar process in relation to local elections in our respective countries.

Dr. Howells: That opinion was shared by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, which, in one of its reports, warned that a cautious approach was necessary as the granting of legislative competence in the Council would result in an irreversible transfer of power from national parliaments. More ominously, the Committee also warned that if Community competence were accepted, it would extend to national elections.
The second supplementary memorandum on European Community legislation, issued by the Home Office on 30 November 1994, expressed its satisfaction with the final draft of the directive and especially with the proposals for registration for local government elections. They should be conducted according to the laws of the member state of residence, rather than along the lines of the so-called voluntary scheme used for European Parliament elections, which sought to impose a much more standardised model throughout the 15 member states.
In other words, European Union citizens will be registered according to existing national practice and as part of the normal annual canvass. That is a simple, straightforward proposal and, with the important proviso that the Government maintain the utmost vigilance both in advancing the reciprocal voting rights of UK nationals living elsewhere in the European Union and in guarding against electoral fraud and illegal manipulation of votes in this country, Labour supports the motion.

Mr. David Wilshire: This is the first time that I have ventured into the European fray, and I do so with a fair degree of trepidation. My party colleagues in the House and in my constituency are all well aware of my private reservations, but this is the first time that I have placed those reservations on the record. I believe that it is fair to say that I have not done so in the past because I wanted to do what I could to help the Government, so I have kept a low profile, but there comes a point, however trivial that point might appear, when each one of us concludes that enough is enough. I have reached that point.
I am not alone. Two surveys that I have carried out in the past month or so of my constituents and Conservative party members in my constituency reveal that more than 85 per cent. of those who have replied to both surveys are unhappy about any further dilution of our sovereignty, which is what I judge that the regulations amount to.
Before I go further down that track and disturb my hon. Friend the Minister, let me give him some good news. I have no problems with regulation 4 because I subscribe to the principle of no taxation without representation irrespective of where a person is born or what is written in his passport, and because I believe that anyone who lives in this country and becomes liable to pay council tax has every reason to expect to have some say in helping to choose his representatives.
However, I find regulation 3 very disturbing. Before I explain why, may I discuss two arguments that someone might be tempted to make later that would weaken my case? The first is that the regulations extend the rights of Irish and Commonwealth citizens only to citizens living in the European Union. Quite so. I would remove the entitlement of Irish and Commonwealth citizens to stand for election in this country. The second argument that could weaken my case is that the regulations are merely consequential and that we do not therefore have any choice. In one way, I accept that that is true, but, in practice, the regulations require the approval of the House. If so, by definition we have a say. We could reject the regulations, if we are willing to face the consequences, but I suspect that we are not. One day, I judge that the House will have to face the consequences.
I find regulation 3 disturbing because I am opposed to allowing foreigners to stand for election in this country, however closely allied and however much we like them. Anyone who is not a British citizen is by definition a foreigner, and I do not use the word "foreigner" to belittle anybody in any way. I accept that I am a foreigner in every other country in the world. Elected bodies at whatever level are part of the way that a sovereign state operates its political system and democracy. As such, elected bodies are an integral part of a state's independence and individuality.
I do not accept that councils are merely a way of getting dustbins emptied. They are an expression of who we are and who is foreign. Elected representatives at parliamentary or parish council level all play a key role in upholding the integrity and independence of the sovereign state. In the House, we swear an oath of allegiance as soon as we are elected. The same duties apply in local government, although they go unspoken. I cannot for the life of me see how foreigners can uphold Britishness unless they first become British citizens.
At its most absurd, the regulations could lead to a council on which not one British citizen served. Common sense says that will not happen but if we do not believe that it will happen or do not want it to happen, why pass regulations that allow it to happen?

Mr. Marlow: The logic of the Maastricht treaty, including moves within Europe, is that we cease to have British citizenship and have European citizenship instead. If we are all European citizens, why should it matter who stands in local government elections?

Mr. Wilshire: I would love to go down that track, but it would probably be better not to enter into that debate when considering this measure.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be relived to hear that that is all that I want to say. I simply want to flag up the matters that worry me in principle. I do not want to delay the House. I know that my hon. Friend cannot assist me, so we are stuck with the measure for now. However, I wanted to put my views on record for the avoidance of

doubt and so that when more substantial changes are being considered in future by hon. Friends on the Front Bench, they will know exactly the direction from which I am coming.

Mr. David Rendel: The speech of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) was astounding and rather worrying—worrying because it reflected a form of xenophobia that the House should not exhibit, and astounding because it was so poorly argued. If there is any understandable argument for opposing the regulations, they should be opposed as a whole. After all, the power to vote is the real power that the regulations are giving away—the power to enable people to do something about their local area. The ability merely to stand leaves the power in the hands of the electorate. If they decide that they do not wish a so-called foreigner to be their councillor, they can choose not to elect him or her.

Mr. Wilshire: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that argument is flawed because once an individual is elected to a council, for the next four years there is no means of recalling his or her mandate?

Mr. Rendel: That does not in any sense argue against my point that the electorate have the right not to choose as their councillor somebody who is not a British citizen. How long a person remains a councillor is irrelevant to what happens at the time of an election.
I welcome the final approval of the regulations by the House. They have been delayed for far too long and that is a shame. It is time that all European Union citizens resident in this country were given the right to participate in our local democracy—just as they already participate in many other areas of British life, including paying their taxes.

Mr. Terry Dicks: What does the hon. Gentleman think of people in Macau being given full Portuguese passports and being able to enter Britain and vote, without having contributed to this country or been residents of the European Union?

Mr. Rendel: They will not, under the regulations, be given the right to vote or to stand, unless they have been resident in this country. It is not true to say that former residents of Macau will have the right to vote in Britain even if they have not been resident in the European Union. They must have been resident on the date on which they were entered on the electoral register the year before.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Although the hon. Gentleman is making a good democratic point, as one would expect of a Liberal Democrat, why should a citizen of the United States of America who has been resident in the hon. Gentleman's constituency for five years, with the right to reside and as a taxpayer, not have the right to vote in council elections? Why no to America but yes to the European Union?

Mr. Rendel: Were I given the chance tonight to approve regulations to allow universal voting rights to people properly resident in this country, paying taxes and playing a full part in local affairs, I would do so. Unfortunately, the Government are not giving us that opportunity, but that is not my fault.
That it has taken so long to establish a basic democratic principle for all citizens of the European Union living in Britain is a sad comment on the narrow-mindedness of the British political establishment. The delay cannot simply be blamed on European squabbles about the definition of the word "municipal". The House had the opportunity to approve such regulations at any time of its choosing, regardless of debates proceeding elsewhere on other issues.
It is a fundamental principle of representative government—in this, I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne—that all members of a community who are expected to contribute to it on an equal basis should have equal rights to representation. The same even-handed principle applies to other rights and duties. We expect foreign nationals who are permanently resident in British communities to pay their taxes. We expect them to obey our laws. Within the obvious limitations of our archaic legal system, we also uphold the right of foreign nationals to equality under the law. How is it that extending the franchise to active, legitimate members of our community—whether from America or the European Union—has caused so much anguish on the Conservative Benches? Why does the notion of European friends and neighbours being able to take part in the democratic process horrify Conservative Members?
Last week, I spent some time reading the Hansard report of a debate on the subject on 1 February 1993. Predictably—then as apparently tonight—one Conservative Member after the next stood up to wave the flag of xenophobia and to raise all sorts of evils that would result from giving foreigners resident in Britain the slightest taste of democratic power. One speaker in that debate was considerably more heated than the rest. He warned of grave threats to Britain as we know it—even to the monarchy itself. Perhaps he feared that some members of the royal household might be tempted to escape to other countries in the European Union, on the basis that they would then have the vote in those countries' local elections. That outraged speaker was of course the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor)—whom I warned of my reference to him in tonight's debate. I am sorry that he is not present. At that time the hon. Gentleman was a Back Bencher and free to castigate foreign nationals as much as he wished. He has now reached the elevated position of a Foreign Office Minister. What a wonderful and "logical" career progression the Prime Minister has seen fit to give him. The hon. Gentleman berated foreigners—especially the Greeks, for some reason—and he is now a highly paid senior diplomat and Minister in our foreign service.
Not content with mere xenophobia, the hon. Member for Upminster did a grave disservice to local democracy as a whole and to British nationals living abroad. He announced:
What advantage does article 8 offer the British people? It gives them rights exercisable in other countries—the right to vote in municipal elections in France, Greece, Italy, Germany, Ireland or Luxembourg. Marvellous. I cannot see any use to the British people in that right."—[Official Report, 1 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 91.]
I can. How can a Member of this place so denigrate the right to vote in local elections? It is an important right and we should all regard it as such. If that is the regard in which local government and local people are held by a

senior member of the Conservative party, is it any wonder that year after year the Conservatives are trounced in local elections? The next time that the Conservative party sponges off British expatriates, whether for votes or donations, will it honestly inform them of its Minister who feels that their rights abroad are worthless?
Despite the opposition of so many Conservative Members, at least we have progressed to this point—the regulations are before us. It is a pity though that so many residents of this country were not enfranchised in time for the recent local elections, which were, after all, the largest set in the electoral cycle. Many foreign nationals will now have to wait for nearly four more years before they can put into practice the right that I believe we shall give them tonight to contribute to their local democracy.

Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman keeps on referring to foreign nationals and thereby goes beyond the subject in question, which is citizens of the European Union. Does he think that Japanese should vote in local government elections or citizens of the United States? Is he not guilty, in a sense, of the same xenophobia that he is trying to cast on others?

Mr. Rendel: I have already answered an intervention in exactly that form. If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place a few minutes ago he might have heard my answer.
For me the issue is simple. The more members of a particular society who take part in the democratic government of that society, the better. We all agree that low electoral turnouts are bad for democracy. Some of us go to extraordinary lengths to persuade people to exercise their democratic rights. Yet some Conservative Members would prefer that thousands of people living in this country and thousands of British people living abroad had no such rights. I say to them, "What price democracy when petty nationalism invades our political agenda?"

Sir Teddy Taylor: I expected, as usually happens with European issues, that the Chamber would be virtually empty as a result of most Members having a voluntary strike. That is because Members do not want to ask themselves, "What are we doing and why?" Attendance has been a bit better than usual tonight. For example, we heard the brave speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). He said what I think every Member knows in his heart, which is that basically the people of Britain are becoming sick to death with the way in which their independence and liberty are being thrown away without their being advised, told or consulted. That is the issue, and it is not taken up by the petty points of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel).
As the hon. Member for Newbury rightly said, however, if there were a proposal before the House that every national resident in Britain should have the right to vote in local government elections, it would be an issue of principle on which he and I would agree. I feel that anyone who is living in a council area and paying local taxes should have participation in democracy. But that is not the issue this evening. My sole point—I plead it before the Government—is that we should tell the people what is going on.
It is sad that with the EU, as a result of small divisions in the past, which are now growing and of which the people are aware, we have a conspiracy of silence on


Government policy. If anyone doubts that, I ask him or her to read a question that I tabled and the answer that I received today from a Treasury Minister. I asked simply about our "net contribution" to the European Union this year and what it was in each of the past 10 years. If that information had been contained in a Government pamphlet, the Government would have replied, "Look up the pamphlet." But it is not. I have been advised that I must turn to Command Paper 2824 to find this year's figure and then to refer to a similar Command Paper for the past 10 years. It is obvious that that absurd bureaucratic nonsense is to avoid stating in Hansard how much the people of Britain pay and how much more they are now paying.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) seems to think that this is a laughing matter. It is not. If he thinks that it is funny, let him go to Hong Kong and then Macau and say to the people, "What are our respective rights?" The hon. Gentleman might wave his hands around, but there is the dreadful possibility that Labour might assume power. By the time that that happens, if it does, Labour will find that the country's freedom to decide virtually anything will have gone.
I want the Government to answer a simple and straightforward question: who will be able to stand for our council elections? We know that there is a definition in the treaty of Rome. When our debates took place, all Members were able to be present throughout. The explanation was "citizens of the Union concerned".
What is a citizen of the Union? He is not only a Frenchman, a German, an Italian or a Belgian. Unless I am terribly wrong—I might be stupid—it is my understanding that citizenship of the Union means basically residency in overseas territories of member states. It is not just citizenship of member states themselves. For example, a Portuguese citizen who lives in Macau is a Portuguese citizen. Macau is 40 miles from Hong Kong. As we know, Hong Kong used to have a close relationship with Britain. We understand now that it is to be transferred to China. What will be the position in two or three years of a resident of Hong Kong and a resident of Macau 40 miles away? I understand that one would be able to vote and the other not.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to annex IV of the Maastricht treaty, which contains a list of overseas territories of member states. It contains places such as Ubangi-Shari, Chad, Gabon, Ruanda-Urundi, French Polynesia, the Netherlands Antilles, Bonaire, Curacao, Saba and Sint Maarten. I understand that French Guinea is an overseas territory of France. Britain, on the other hand, is within a special relationship. Is it true that this consideration applies only to people living on the continent? Does it not apply also, as we well know, to a host of countries throughout the world that happen to be overseas territories of member states? If that is the position, what is the point of giving rights to people living in strange parts of Africa and south-east Asia, for example, unless they are to be given to everyone?

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend will note that the definition of "citizen of the Union" explicitly excludes Commonwealth citizens. We are conferring a right on those who are citizens of overseas territories as a result of other countries' attachments while our Commonwealth citizens are expressly excluded.

Sir Teddy Taylor: These matters are complex and complicated. I understand that Commonwealth citizens

already have the right that we are discussing. What is written in papers that come before us is not usually the whole story. If my hon. Friend were thinking of borrowing money, for example, I would strongly advise him to read the small print of the relevant document. It is so important to take account of the small print.
There is the special question of Gibraltar. Its citizens are going through a nightmare because of the hostility of and pressurising by Spain. Surely the Government are well aware of what is happening. I understand that people in Gibraltar are British citizens. One would expect that as British citizens they would have the right to stand in our council elections. I am told that they do not as citizens of the EU because of a special problem in the treaty. It seems that although Gibraltar is in the Union it is not exactly in it. For example, it is the only part of the Union that has no representation in the European Parliament.
There is always the danger of becoming a Euro-bore and going on and on. I go on only because at almost every debate that involves European issues one more Member attends. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne was so honest when he said that he has been worried for a long time and is now becoming especially worried.
People should wake up to what the idea of European citizenship really means. This is not a question of voting in council elections in Harrow, for instance; we are talking about the beginning of the disappearance of United Kingdom citizenship. Hon. Members may say that that is not true, but they know in their hearts that it is. Slowly, day by day, our liberty and national identity are disappearing. I would have no objection to that if people were consulted, asked or told.
Let me ask the Minister some basic questions. First, is it true that a substantial number of overseas territories throughout the world classify their citizens as citizens of the European Union—places such as Macau, which I have already mentioned? Secondly, if that is true, does it mean that, if resident in this country, those people can stand in council elections? Thirdly, if all those people in those strange countries all over the world can stand in council elections here, why on earth cannot a citizen of the United States have the same right? I feel that this is not an extension of our franchise or an extension of liberty, but merely a further attempt to nail down the new principle of our citizenship of the European Union rather than of a nation.
May I ask the Minister two more specific questions? Will he tell me—with the help of his splendid Foreign Office advisers who visit the area; I only wish that they would tell us what they are actually doing one of these days—what will be the position of Hong Kong and Macau in the year 2000? Will citizens resident in Hong Kong not have this right, while those in Macau will? What is the position of poor old Gibraltar, about which no one seems to care nowadays and which is going down the plughole with no friends or supporters? No one is prepared to shout for Gibraltar, but I hope that we shall start shouting.
I hope that I have followed the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, and said what people are really saying out there tonight.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I intend to speak briefly.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I was delighted by the encapsulation of Liberal party foreign policy that we were given by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). He thought that the main priority of any Foreign Office Minister was the interests of foreigners, as it was totally reprehensible to be the slightest bit interested in those of the United Kingdom. That, certainly, is a summation of his speech.

Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marlow: I did want to be brief.

Mr. Rendel: What I said was that it was important for a Foreign Office Minister to look after the interests of our citizens, and their right to vote in other countries.

Mr. Marlow: As far as I could make out, the hon. Gentleman thought it totally reprehensible for a potential Foreign Office Minister to go on about the interests of the United Kingdom and to treat the United Kingdom as his main priority. The hon. Gentleman used that dreadful word "xenophobic". He said that it was unforgivable to take such views; how could a Foreign Minister possibly look foreigners in the eye if he were interested in the interests of the United Kingdom? I shall let that pass, however.
All this follows from the ghastly notion of European citizenship incorporated in the Maastricht treaty, which was one of the crosses that the Government had to bear as the thing was bulldozed through the House against the wishes of a large number of right hon. and hon. Members, and certainly against the wishes and interests of the population of the United Kingdom. We thought then that talk of EU citizenship was a ghastly nonsense. I am sure that Ministers thought that it was a ghastly nonsense when they were ploughing through the briefs before them, but if they did not think so then they certainly think so now. They know that 80 or 90 per cent. of our constituents are totally against this bizarre concept. No one can be a citizen of the European Union and of the United Kingdom at the same time; one must take precedence and priority over the other.
Having accepted—as I think most people now do—that the concept is misguided, why must we bring this nonsense before the House? I suppose that we must do so because it is in the Maastricht treaty; but what will be the consequences if we proceed with the regulations? What are the potential consequences for parliamentary elections? Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House categorically that passing these measures this evening will have no implications for such elections—or is this the thin end of the wedge? Does it mean that at some later stage EU citizens will also be entitled to vote in our parliamentary elections?
Will my hon. Friend tell the House where we come in the pecking order? Are we the first to pass the regulations, or the second? What other countries in Europe have passed them, and, if other countries have not passed them, by when do they intend to do so? We are usually the most reluctant to agree to such measures, but we always seem to be the first to implement them. If that has been the case in the past, why is it the case now? Why do we not wait for the Germans and the French to pass regulations—as

has been suggested—before forcing them on a reluctant British people, when we know that their heart is not in the issue?
Finally, what will happen if we do not pass the regulations? Will that mean that EU citizens will be able to vote in our local elections in future? If they cannot do that, will they be able to bring a legal case, with potential compensation, against Her Majesty's Government and the House of Commons? What will happen then? Does the House have real powers, or, if it objects, is it merely a cipher, and will the regulations still have their effect? Will my hon. Friend tell the House that?
This week the House will debate its pensions. There has been discussion in the press today about how we should deal with Prime Minister's questions, and later in the week we shall discuss the regulation of our outside interests. I suppose that all those are important issues, but they are relatively trivial in the context of our democracy, how we control it and the powers of the House. Has the House real powers with regard to Europe, or is it a mere cipher? In comparison with Nero fiddling, the House is in danger of becoming an orchestra.

Mr. William Cash: This is yet another example of the slippery slope down which we headed when we debated Maastricht in 1992–93. For example, an English citizen is given no right to a business vote in local government elections by virtue of his having a business. That highly contentious but very important question is not dealt with by the regulations.
We know from a recent survey by Sheffield university that more than 60 per cent. of Conservative Back Benchers said that they did not agree with the Maastricht treaty, although they had voted for it in the Lobby. It is also known that, under the rulings of the European Court of Justice, the word "municipal"—which has already been raised—means "national"; it does not necessarily mean "local government". The Minister is having an interesting conversation with the Whip, but, if he would be good enough to listen, may I ask him for an absolute assurance that there is no question of the word "municipal" ever being interpreted by the British Government as implying a right to vote in general elections? In that event, the slippery slope would become a chasm.
Then there is the question of title 2 itself. Title 2 clearly states that the rights and duties of a so-called European citizen are effectively a blank sheet of paper that will be filled in later. May we have an explicit assurance that in no circumstances will those rights be extended to general elections? Will the Minister ensure—will he put it to the Prime Minister—that the question of an extension of those rights in relation to local government will be expressly included in the agenda for the next intergovernmental conference, so that we can have a clear assurance that such developments will be ruled out with respect to general elections?
There is also the question of the connection between citizenship and movement of persons. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has already pointed out that citizenship of the European Union in respect of other countries includes overseas territories. I stand by the point that I made with regard to Commonwealth citizens, and I think that my hon. Friend was right about Gibraltar; but people using the citizenship


of overseas territories that are linked to France, Portugal, Spain and other EU countries have been engaging in illegal immigration. If a member of such an overseas territory has been granted the right to vote in a local government election, it follows that he will be allowed to emigrate to the country in which the election is held. Perhaps the Minister, who is also responsible for immigration, will comment on that. This is not a trivial matter: it is about an invasion of the rights of the people of this country to determine their own identity and make their own decisions in local government elections about those who will represent them.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend should not waste the House's time by seeking assurances from the Government. Article 8E on citizenship makes it abundantly clear that when the powers in the regulations are granted, the Council of Ministers, after consulting the European Parliament, could add to the rights of citizenship without consulting this House. Does he appreciate that under the treaty, which he and I voted against, powers to extend the rights of European citizens have been given to the Council of Ministers who can do that after consulting the European Parliament? Let us not waste time by asking for assurances from the Government or the Opposition, or even from the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Cash: I am always more than glad to take my hon. Friend's advice. However, I ask for assurances because these matters are always open to interpretation, as is the word "municipal". It is important to be crystal clear. No doubt the Minister will want to say that such an extension under the aegis of the Council of Ministers would apply merely to local or regional government or something of that kind. I want an explicit assurance from the Minister that there is no question whatever of further additions or extensions to citizenship in relation to local government being extended to general elections. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: We have had a good and wide-ranging debate and I shall do my best to comment, if briefly, on the matters that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) made a good point when he said that he was anxious to see that the new regulations were fairly applied. We are also concerned about that. We are anxious to see that British nationals are not denied rights to vote in other countries in accordance with the directive.
All member states have to declare to which elections the directive will apply. They have all done that, and the list of elections in each country is included as part of the directive. No member state has failed to declare which elections will be applicable, and at the moment we have no reason to believe that any country is behind in preparing for what we are moving towards in this important debate.

Mr. Marlow: Can my hon. Friend tell me in which EU countries United Kingdom citizens are able to vote in local elections?

Mr. Baker: No, I cannot, but I will write to my hon. Friend about that.
I stress that under the directive the laws of member states apply to their local elections. The basis of voting is residence here. Some hon. Members got a little carried

away about that. I accept that whether someone is a citizen of the European Union is relevant, but to qualify to vote here that person must be resident in the same way as anyone else.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) was a little churlish. We have taken our time in debating these matters. We debated the Maastricht treaty and we have considered the regulations on a number of occasions: they have been gone through thoroughly in Committee. That is a measure of the concern of my colleagues on this matter, and I take issue with the hon. Gentleman over his tone. When he had the nerve to attack my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), he went too far. If the hon. Gentleman did anything, he lost the argument that he was trying to advance. My hon. Friends have described their genuine concerns, and anyone who tries to rub those out or pretend that they do not exist does not deserve to be taken seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) voiced some concerns. We debated the treaty before signing it. The regulations are consequential and we have debated them: they are a continuation of the process. My hon. Friend seems to want to exclude Irish citizens from voting here. We certainly would not do that. Perhaps my hon. Friend does not appreciate the number of Commonwealth citizens who can vote here as it is and it seems that he does not place much value on the fact that when the directive is implemented, our citizens will be able to vote in EU local elections.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend the Minister misses the point that I think I made in my speech. It is that I do not have any difficulties with people voting here. The point I made was about the people who offer themselves for election.

Mr. Baker: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I possibly mistook what he said. However, some comments apply to people who stand for election as well as to those who vote.
I take seriously the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He answered his own question about the directive and its application to Gibraltar. He is right to say that Gibraltar is not part of the electoral territory of the United Kingdom although Gibraltarians are British citizens and those of them who live in the UK can vote here. I shall have to write to my hon. Friend about Hong Kong and Macau. Citizens of the European Union are defined in the treaty and that is where one must look for the definition. In that respect, he again answered his own question. I repeat that the right to vote is based on residence here.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend the Minister spoke about a directive. Which directive has given birth to the regulations?

Mr. Baker: I do not have the records to show that, but the directive to which we are party has at the back of it a list of countries and the elections in which, member states have agreed, the right to vote in local elections shall apply. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members were concerned about the implications for parliamentary elections. I make it quite clear that the directive contains no implications for elections to the House and we do not intend to see that franchise extended. That is a quite


separate matter. Allied to that is the fact that "municipal" does not mean "national" and the directive cannot be interpreted as applying to general elections here.
The reference that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) seeks is a directive of the Council of the European Community. The reference is 94/80/EC. That is the one I have in mind. We have had a good debate and I regret that time prevents me from debating these matters at greater length.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Local Government Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualification of Members) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Updated Code of Audit Practice for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales, dated 23rd June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

EXPORT AND INVESTMENT GUARANTEES

That the draft Export and Investment Guarantees (Limit on Foreign Currency Commitments) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

Social Security

Mr. Keith Bradley: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1644), dated 28th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be annulled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Income Support and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1613), dated 26th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be annulled.

Mr. Bradley: One set of regulations deals with restrictions on housing benefit and the other deals with restrictions on income support for mortgage interest payments. I intend to deal with the latter first as they have already provoked considerable comment and concern both inside and outside the House. They could not be better summed up than by a quotation from an article by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) who, unfortunately, is not with us tonight. In Roof magazine in March 1995, he said:
The proposals to reduce income support for mortgage interest are poor economics, weak housing policy and bad politics.
All Opposition Members agree with that sentiment.
Let us consider the main changes. First, most borrowers with existing agreements at 2 October 1995 will get no income support for their mortgage interest during the first eight weeks of a claim and will get only 50 per cent. during the next 18 weeks. At present, most borrowers get 50 per cent. during the first 16 weeks. In effect, two weeks are added on to that period, with an eight-week period with no income support mortgage interest payments at the beginning.
Secondly, most borrowers who take out new agreements after 2 October will get no income support mortgage interest payment for the first 39 weeks of a claim. That is completely new. Thirdly, income support mortgage interest payments will, in future, be paid only at a standard rate that may be less than the actual rate that a borrower has to pay to the lender. Fourthly, the regulations tighten up definitions of repairs and improvements that are eligible for any payment.
Throughout our deliberations on the matter, the Government have given a clear signal that they want private insurance to replace public provision for mortgage holders who fall on hard times. Indeed, in their memorandum to the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Government referred to their proposals as the "first steps". Surely we must ask where the first steps are leading. Logically, they must be leading to the abolition of income support mortgage interest payments, particularly given some of the Government's arguments in support of the changes. It seems likely that, at the very least, the new restricted periods will be extended in the future.
In fact, the regulations are not the first steps. Over the past few years, the Government have introduced many measures reducing protection. Since 1987, for example, claimants under 60 have had only 50 per cent. of their interest met for the first 16 weeks of a claim. Only interest


on loan capital up to £100,000 is now met and new or increased loans to claimants who have been on income support during the previous 26 weeks are now generally excluded. Those are just some of the measures that the Government have already taken to restrict such payments.
We do not argue that there is no place at all for private provision in mortgage protection schemes. However, we believe that the Government have an important role to play in the protection of home owners who fall on hard times. A home cannot be compared with any other commodity; it is the bedrock of family life and personal security. The consequences of losing one's home are devastating, especially when children are involved. The fear of losing one's home must put an intolerable strain on relationships and on health. Falling into mortgage arrears, which will inevitably be a heightened risk under the new proposals, often triggers a spiralling descent into debt from which it may be impossible for many to extricate themselves.
The Government clearly wish to make savings in the social security budget. What are the real reasons for the growth in that budget? The large rise in the income support mortgage interest payment budget over the past decade and a half is not due to any relaxation in the rules governing it; indeed, the reverse has been the case. The rise is due to the growth in home ownership, especially among those on low incomes who may be more susceptible to unemployment. It is also due to the boom in house prices and the relaxation of credit controls that fuelled it. In addition, there were periods of high interest rates during preceding years. Many of those factors are the direct result of Government policy. They have certainly been outside the control of borrowers who now suffer under the new rules.
Let us now consider what the Government's proposals are to replace income support mortgage interest payments. Let us look at the inadequacy of mortgage protection policies on which the Government rely to protect people. First, certain groups are not covered. The Association of British Insurers, for example, admits that several groups are not able to buy adequate or, indeed, any protection at present. Examples are part-time, seasonal and contract workers, the self-employed and those with pre-existing conditions, especially those who are HIV positive. It is also not possible to insure against the risk of separation. The Government have made no concessions for the various groups of casual workers. That is especially ironic, given that they have been actively encouraging the casualisation of the labour market in recent years—a trend that will, no doubt, continue with the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance next year.
Secondly, there is difficulty in renewing cover. Even when people are initially able to obtain cover, they may not be able to renew it or will be able to renew only on prohibitive terms. Mortgage protection policies offer only short periods, typically 12 months, whereas mortgages are a long-term commitment, usually 25 years. At the end of each 12-month period, the insurer has the option of whether to agree to renew. If the insured has in the meantime developed a chronic illness or is now in less secure employment, the insurer is at liberty not to renew or to make the terms of the policy and the new premium even more stringent. Meanwhile, the insured person retains his or her liability under the mortgage. The Government just do not seem to address the crucial point

of the interrelationship between the mortgage terms and the mortgage protection policies that are on offer. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on that point.
Thirdly, there are disproportionately larger premiums for particular groups of people. I am grateful for the mound of evidence on that point, which has come from many voluntary organisations, such as the Disability Living Alliance, the Child Poverty Action Group and citizens advice bureaux. Those larger premiums affect especially vulnerable groups, such as disabled people or people who have been in and out of work. They are able to obtain insurance, but are likely to have to pay larger premiums. At present, the cost through the mortgage interest system is spread among all taxpayers on the normal principles of equity. That benefit will be lost under the new arrangements.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders has estimated that the proposals will add 10 per cent. to the annual cost of home ownership. For many people who are already struggling to keep their homes, that increased burden may tip the balance and stop them being able to keep their property.
There is also the difficulty of making a claim; much case study work has been done on that. Again, I am grateful to organisations such as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux for providing the Opposition with the relevant material. It is not surprising that insurers insist on relying on the small print when they pay out on their policies. Obviously, the companies are there to make a profit and the commercial reality is that the fewer claims that have to be met, the greater their profits. Although insurers may, for public relations reasons, be keen to portray themselves as prompt payers and willing, as they say, not to make a drama out of a crisis, the reality can be very different for many people who try to make a claim.
Whatever the position of insurers, hardly any policies pay out for the first 60 to 90 days of unemployment. In their response to the Social Security Advisory Committee report, the Government do not even pretend that people will be able to insure for the first eight weeks when existing borrowers will have no income support mortgage interest payments. So how do they justify the rule that prohibits payment during those eight weeks? The Government say that private insurance should cover that, but admit that they have no answer to the claim that that first period is uninsurable.
In many previous debates on the matter, we have heard about the wonders of the Skipton building society. The Labour party recently undertook a survey of building societies, to see exactly what picture is now emerging. The results are, to say the least, interesting. The Nationwide building society, for example, said:
The first point to make is that research indicates that less than one third of customers in arrears could have claimed on a private insurance policy. Offering free insurance which provides insufficient cover therefore is misguided. There are categories of borrowers, such as the self-employed, for whom aspects of this insurance would be inappropriate and therefore expensive. In fact, it is likely that policies which do not cover divorce or separation, or cater for the ending of a fixed term contract, will be of little value to many customers.
It goes on to say:
We believe the effect on the market place of the new regulations will be to further reduce confidence in the housing market, at a time when this is least appropriate. Without the benefit of ISMI, more borrowers will unfortunately find themselves in arrears, and repossessions could increase.


That is just one typical example from the comments that we have received from many building societies that represent the bulk of the market, and the Government should take note. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.
Another example is from the head of lending at the Woolwich building society. He said:
The housing market is suffering from a dearth of confidence. People are reluctant to take on (or increase) commitments, given the uncertainty over job security, interest rate movements, etc. The restrictions on income support merely serve to further undermine confidence.
The general manager of the Halifax building society said:
The changes will not be good for the housing market.
Despite all that evidence, the Government are determined to plough ahead with their arrangements.
The Government made some concessions during the consultation period but, at best, the changes that they made could be described as minimal. They may be better described as mean-spirited. New borrowers with pre-existing medical conditions or HIV whose mortgage protection claim is rejected would not be subject to the 39-week no-income-support rule. However, that takes no account of people who cannot obtain insurance in the first place, or cannot renew it, because they will be subject to the eight and 18-week rule. They will be treated like existing borrowers and therefore left without protection for those periods.
In respect of HIV, much work and lobbying has been done by important organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, and the Social Security Department recognises in incapacity benefit the need to deal with that group of people sensitively. Why have the Government rejected the claims and representations made on that point so far? I would value the Minister's comments on that important issue, which is causing immense difficulty for many people who are trying to take out normal commercial insurance.
Similarly, new borrowers who are lone parents and who have been deserted or bereaved will be subject to the eight and 18-week rule at a time when they face emotional and financial pressures. The Government accept that it is not possible to insure against the risk of separation, but make no concession to partners left alone who do not have children, despite the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendation to the converse. Although carers are exempt from the 39-week rule, they will be subject to the eight and 18-week rule. If they have given up work to look after disabled relatives, they will fall outside mortgage protection insurance because they will have become unemployed voluntarily. There are more and more examples of where minor concessions that the Government have made during the consultation period do not add up to a bean. In practice, they are worthless because insurance policies will not cover key groups of people. The Government must respond to those difficulties.
I shall deal briefly with the introduction of the new standard rate of interest that will apply when calculating income support mortgage interest. In future, interest will generally be paid at a standard rate, not the actual rate that borrowers must pay. In their consultation document, the Government said that there will inevitably be gainers and losers with a system based on an average. Some

potential gainers—those with rates of under 5 per cent.—will get income support mortgage interest at their actual rate and will therefore not gain. All potential losers will, by contrast, lose. The Government are putting administrative simplicity before fairness and borrowers with interest rates above the standard rate will inevitably be placed in difficulty.
Moreover, the Government specifically rejected the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendation that, where borrowers remortgage so that they can get a lower rate, they should be treated as existing borrowers in relation to the new arrangements and therefore be subject to the eight and 18-week rule, not the 39-week rule. The Government insist that they must be subject to the 39-week rule. How do they justify that proposal?
Let us look at the overall effect of the changes. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has estimated that a further 12,000 to 24,000 repossessions a year will take place as a direct result of the changes. Already, nearly 1,000 repossessions take place every week. In addition, the number of borrowers in arrears—currently well over a quarter of a million people are more than six months in arrears—is bound to increase. One can imagine the catalogue of human misery that will result.
The irony is that the savings to the Exchequer are likely to be minimal. The Government estimate that annual savings will eventually be some £200 million. They have provided no detailed costing showing how that figure is arrived at. However, even if it proves accurate, it takes no account of the extra expenditure that other parts of the Government budget, national and local, will have to bear, for example, the housing budget through more homelessness and additional housing benefits, and perhaps the health and social security budgets.
The Government should tackle those problems and the serious problems of repossessions, arrears and negative equity. They must do something to stimulate the housing market rather than pursue these mean-minded measures. I offer a final thought on this subject—a quotation from a recent book of memoirs:
I was acutely conscious of what interest rate changes meant for those with mortgages … borrowers' lives can be shattered overnight by higher interest rates. My economic policy was intended to be a social policy. It was a way to a property owning democracy. And so the needs of home owners must never be forgotten".
That is a quotation from Margaret Thatcher's memoirs, "The Downing Street Years", pages 698–99. Why do the Government no longer want to support home owners in the spirit of their former Prime Minister?
On the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations, it should be pointed out that those changes have been deferred from October 1995 to January 1996, presumably to avoid administrative chaos. Will the Minister confirm that all the computer systems for the changes will be in place and operational, ready for the new implementation date? We are well aware that the new system poses a number of difficult questions relating to operational matters: how rent officers will determine average rents; how the interface between rent officer service and the housing benefit authorities will work; how the review process will function; the practicalities of running the new and old systems side by side; and so on. I understand that the housing and public services section is involved in detailed discussions with the DSS and the rent officer service on those points, to minimise the problem. Will the Minister give us some details tonight


about how those discussions are going, to ensure that we do not run into administrative chaos when the scheme is finally introduced?
There are several other key points in the regulations that are causing particular concern: first, the introduction of the local reference rent; secondly, the abolition of guaranteed protection for vulnerable groups; and, thirdly, the impact on supported housing schemes.
First, the local reference rent level may be less than a reasonable market rent. The shortfall between the housing benefit paid and the property's market rate is likely to increase financial hardship, rent arrears and eviction. Furthermore, there may be no suitable alternative accommodation at the local reference rent for the person to move to. That could mean a significant increase in homelessness. Again, we have had example after example of how people are unable to meet the shortfall between the rent that they are asked to pay and housing benefit levels. They are expected to pay the shortfall from other meagre benefits, which is unacceptable.
Secondly, at present, certain vulnerable groups, essentially elderly or disabled people and families with children, are exempt from housing benefit high-rent restrictions, unless suitable alternative accommodation is available and it is reasonable to expect the claimant to move. That protection will be abolished and housing benefit authorities will be given a cash-limited grant instead to use to offset, in part or in whole, the effects of cuts in cases of exceptional hardship.
The key purpose behind that proposal is clearly to make savings. On current figures, the Department of Social Security contribution to local exceptional hardship funds will be about one third of the amount that the Department estimates will be necessary to protect the groups currently defined as vulnerable. Housing benefit authorities will be permitted to put in a similar amount from their own resources. The remaining third are presumably expected to move or to persuade their landlords to reduce the rent. DSS estimates show that the savings from those cuts in respect of vulnerable groups—and I stress that we are dealing with such groups—will be £53.1 million at 1995–96 prices. The Social Security Advisory Committee commented in its report on the regulations:
the cash-limited nature of the proposal appears to make it inevitable that some people who merit extra help will not receive it".
Many organisations have compared that cash-limited budget with the social fund, where the time of the year one goes through the door determines whether one receives help. Again, many vulnerable people will be affected.
Thirdly, there is concern over supported housing schemes. On that point, I and my hon. Friends have received many representations from concerned organisations. During the consultation, the Government made some welcome concessions in respect of accommodation provided by housing associations, registered charities or voluntary organisations that support, supervise, care and provide for the particular needs of a resident, but the new rules pose a particular threat to supported lodgings, including "adult placement" type schemes in the private rented sector. They are not included in the concessions recently extracted from the Government.
As service charges will be counted against the local reference rent, the great majority of such supported lodgings can be expected to be subject to housing benefit

cuts in respect of new cases. I am informed that Department of Social Security officials are in communication with the Department of Health on that policy area, but as we are debating the regulations tonight, no details have yet been forthcoming. Will the Government give us information tonight about why they have excluded supported housing schemes in the private rented sector, what discussions are going on with the Department of Health in relation to community care schemes, where the private rented sector is in use by local authorities and approved of by the Government, and why those schemes have been excluded from the concessions that have been made by the Government for other types of supported schemes?
All those changes will have a fundamental impact on housing, whether it be through the income support or housing benefit reductions. One must ask whether those housing benefit changes are necessary. The argument for introducing the changes involves the need to stem the rising cost of that subsidy, which totalled £10 billion in 1994–95. That sum, however, includes benefit paid to local authority tenants and housing association tenants. From 1989 to 1993–94, private sector rents rose by 117 per cent., but local authority rents rose by 77 per cent. and housing association rents by 65 per cent. That shift from bricks and mortar subsidies to personal subsidies in the public sector, along with the deregulation of the private rented sector, has been the real reason for the increased cost of housing benefit.
Further to that, under regulation 11 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, local authorities already have the ability to restrict benefit where the accommodation is over-large or unreasonably expensive. In its report to the Secretary of State, the Social Security Advisory Committee states that, in 1993–94, 17 per cent. of properties referred to rent officers in England and Wales were deemed "over-large" and 33 per cent. of private sector rents referred following housing benefit applications were deemed to be above the market level. We can already see that powers are there for rent officers and local authorities to use existing legislation for proper restrictions on housing benefit where it is clearly inappropriate.
The way in which the Government are tackling these matters is particularly unsound. They will affect vulnerable groups, and create hardship, arrears and further repossessions. We shall vote against the regulations because there are better ways forward. A move towards bricks and mortar subsidy, to provide social housing at rents people can afford, is the best way to restrict the housing benefit budget. The changes to the income support regulations do no more than seriously undermine people's security, and further depress the housing market.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): On 13 July, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was quoted in The Times as saying that he intended not to increase the social security budget, but to change the way in which it was spent. If that be right, we certainly saw no sign of a change in policy in the speech by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). He described an expenditure of £200 million a year as minimal—I use his very words—and he has completely overlooked the fact that the Government currently spend £18 billion of


taxation a year to support housing. The majority, about £11 billion last year, was distributed through the benefit system.
Expenditure through the benefit system on housing has more than doubled since 1988.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: It is your fault.

Mr. Evans: It is amusing to hear the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), the Opposition housing spokesman, say, "It is your fault," by which I take it that he means my and the Government's fault rather than yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We had an indication of that in the closing remarks by the hon. Member for Withington. Is the Labour party really going back to the dyed in the wool, 1950s bricks and mortar type subsidy, the sort of expenditure that put a family in a house for 50 years? They were in need on the day that they moved in, but 10, 20, 30, 40 years later they were not in need. The whole thing was absurd. The housing queues built up because no one and no Labour local authority would evict tenants. The Conservative party took the right view that people in council houses who no longer qualified under social need should have the right to buy those homes. That has been vastly popular.
Let us turn to the question of income support mortgage interest payments. I shall deal with the matters in the order that the hon. Member for Withington raised them. The point about this proposal is that the existing system is plainly not supporting the housing market adequately. It is all very well to refer to the income support mortgage interest safety net, but 70 per cent. of those people who have been repossessed did not qualify for income support. Three out of four borrowers in arrears are not in receipt of income support.

Mr. Henry McLeish: So what?

Mr. Evans: The "so what", if the hon. Gentleman wishes to hear it, is simply that if one is talking about devising a safety net, it is a pretty inadequate safety net if it leaves 70 per cent. of people outside the scope of its protection.

Dr. Lynne Jones: The Minister has claimed that the fact that certain people are not covered is an excuse for withdrawing or certainly reducing the safety net. Does he not agree that that safety net could be enlarged by offering universal housing benefit to help with mortgage interest payments? That may cost the Exchequer more money, but it would be cheaper for the person in the street, whether a taxpayer or someone paying an insurance premium, to have to pay a little bit extra in his or her taxes than to have to pay about £5 a week to take out private insurance for the average mortgage.

Mr. Evans: "A little bit extra on your taxes" is what the Labour party always says when it proposes an enormous extension of state expenditure. A mortgage-housing benefit scheme was costed by the Rowntree Trust in 1992 at £600 million a year. There is no doubt that the kind of schemes that have been proposed by various people involve even greater sums than that. There is a better way forward—one which encourages private responsibility and encourages people to take out insurance.
The Labour party is stuck in the mould of the one male householder supporting his family, but 62 per cent. of mortgages these days are taken out on double incomes.

Dr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Evans: Let me finish my point and then I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
Should a couple take out a mortgage based on a double income and one of the couple becomes unemployed, the earnings of the other could make the couple ineligible for income support but there will still be a gap in the payments that threatens their home. Income support is not intended to meet that kind of provision. We suggest that there should be a provision for private insurance, where it is necessary to take that out. Not everyone needs to take out private insurance. Some people have some savings; some people have larger amounts of equity; but for a large number of people mortgage protection insurance offers an imaginative and important means of feeling more secure in their homes.

Dr. Jones: With respect, the Minister has not answered my question. It would be cheaper to offer an improved safety net through the Government than to force people—you are now forcing people—to increase their housing costs substantially by taking out private insurance.

Mr. Evans: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are doing no such thing, even if I may stand accused of that.
The point at stake is simple. A private insurance scheme is not necessarily more expensive. The Skipton building society is introducing one free. As for the promises of greater public expenditure from the Labour party, we know that their historic cost is always enormous and much more than the party promised in the first place. It always means the extension of state control at the expense of the hard-earning couple who are working hard to pay their mortgage. Those are the people expected to pay an extra few pounds a week to support socialist taxation.
The Government have sensitively listened to the problems of various groups who may face difficulty with obtaining cover. That is why new borrowers who are carers; those with pre-existing medical conditions or HIV-related illnesses; remand prisoners and deserted partners who have care of children will be treated as existing borrowers.
The new scheme will come in slowly in stages. If people make a decision to move and buy a new house after 2 October, they know what they are taking on and what their responsibilities and problems are. There is opportunity for someone to take out insurance or to make such other provision as is satisfactory to that person's position. At the same time, an existing claimant will continue to be protected. There is, of course, a halfway house for those who do not move but fall into difficulty.
The essential point is that we are talking about new borrowers facing disqualification or non-payment after 2 October for nine months. That is a finite period. Insurance is, classically, suited to meeting finite risks that can be quantified and evaluated by the market and a price properly put upon them. The Government have no proposals to go beyond the stage that we have suggested and nine months is an eminently insurable proposition.
We have carefully clarified the definition of new borrowing to avoid the perverse effects of what happens if someone wants a remortgage on his existing property.


We have introduced a 26-week linking period where requalification periods for insurance may leave borrowers uncovered. We have introduced special rules to "start the clock", if I may put it like that, on the restricted period for those who are not entitled to income support because of excess income or capital. Above all, once housing costs become payable, they will be paid direct to lenders participating in the mortgage direct scheme. That will help to control arrears by ensuring that benefit paid for housing costs is used for that purpose.
The measures that we have set out in the regulations represent the right balance between benefit and insurance provision and ensure that the two mesh together to provide more comprehensive cover for borrowers.
What the hon. Member for Withington has spelt out, with, to be fair, less than the Caledonian gloom of his colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is that somehow or other the changes are bound to have an adverse effect upon the housing market. Compared with our debate on 13 June, what the hon. Member for Withington said was much more measured—

Mr. Donald Dewar: More cheerful.

Mr. Evans: Oh, it will be cheerful. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Garscadden saw the report in The Herald on 29 June, which said:
The Edinburgh Solicitors' Property Centre called its first new conference in 24 years to allay fears of negative equity and present a new report with an upbeat picture of the Scottish housing market … chairman George Clark said the volume of misinformation, based on serious problems experienced in the south of England, had reached such a level that it had been decided to take action …
'We do not have a problem in Scotland with negative equity … He said where people owed more to the bank or building society than their house was worth, it was generally due to them borrowing more than 100 per cent. on the loan or falling into problems with repayments.
'Scotland's property market is definitely not in the doldrums, but our fear at this time is that all this doom and gloom can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.'

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member for Garscadden, to whom I shall happily give way in a moment, may wish to become the doomster of the Scottish property market, but that is not the view of that particular group, which is heavily involved in it.

Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to say that I have no wish to crack jokes with the Minister. Does he not accept that the report of the Edinburgh property centre, which I saw, made one important point, that Scotland's property market was out of line with the experience in the rest of the country? Although I regard Scotland as an enormously important part of the United Kingdom, it represents only about 9 per cent. of the population and probably rather less than that of the property markets.

Mr. Evans: I do not think that any of us noticed on 13 June that Scotland was excepted from the general gloom propounded by the hon. Gentleman about the housing market.
If we are talking about general gloom, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman also saw the report in the Financial Times by Mr. Kaletsky on the question of how the "myth of negative equity" has arisen. [Interruption.]

Those were the words in the headline in that newspaper. That is why a parliamentary answer was given by the Department of the Environment to the effect that that idea is being looked at. The question is a simple one. It is a question of how, statistically, the figure of over 800,000 households quoted by the Minister at the Department of the Environment somehow has become inflated to well over 1 million people in other reports and other arguments. The point at stake, methodologically, which is significant, is that the definition of negative equity currently used by some commentators appears to have left out the value of the collateral security in the form of the endowment policy, which is an important part of the equation. It is a real asset, which exists to meet the liability.
The arguments about negative equity are a typical example of the unnecessary and highly negative view of the housing market that we have heard from the Opposition, who seem to glory in talking it down. At this point in the business cycle, houses have never been cheaper.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Evans: No, I am about to conclude.
Housing has never been cheaper. The opportunities to buy houses have never been better and the relationship between average earnings and average house prices is highly favourable. It is typical that the Labour party has somehow forgotten, or somehow does not seem to understand, the phenomenon of the trade cycle, which has been analysed by commentators for the past 250 years. The point is that recovery will come.
I turn quickly, because I have spoken for longer than I intended, to the second part of the argument: housing benefit. I shall deal with the first question asked by the hon. Member for Withington about the introduction of the new arrangements in January. We have had discussions with local authority representatives and associations. We were persuaded by listening to their careful and reasoned arguments about the difficulties of developing the various—and they are various—computer software systems that they needed longer than we had originally intended to provide. We believe that it was right to accede to their request and we have been assured by them that they will be able to meet smoothly the January 1996 start date.

Mr. Bradley: On that point, can the Minister assure the House that all the information on the subsidy arrangements and changes for new claimants is now available to the software companies so that they can introduce the systems for the local authorities?

Mr. Evans: I am slightly puzzled by that question in the sense that we are debating the very regulations which provide the legal framework for the computer software. I do not understand to what possible additional matter the hon. Gentleman may be referring. As I understand it, we are debating the very regulations which define the scheme in law and from which the software may be written.
Both the regulations—I shall invite my hon. Friends to reject the prayers to annul them—represent a fair balance between defending people's homes and encouraging private responsibility, and the needs of the taxpayer.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I was interested in what the Minister had to say about Scotland. He appears to have second-hand information from the solicitors of Scotland.

Mr. Dewar: The Edinburgh solicitors.

Mr. Martin: The Edinburgh solicitors, as my hon. Friend says. They are not exactly experts in the suffering endured by some people in Scotland or, indeed, in the rest of the United Kingdom. Houses which used to be sold in a matter of weeks now take nine or 10 months to sell. The Minister and other Ministers have spoken about the mobility of labour and how young people should be able to move around the country to follow jobs. How can they follow jobs to other parts of the country if they cannot sell their homes?
It is easy for the Minister to talk about insurance and mortgage protection, but he must know that many young couples are finding it more and more difficult to get a mortgage, let alone insurance to go with it. Building societies and banks had their fingers burnt over evictions. This Government's policies meant that people found themselves unemployed and could not pay their mortgages, so building societies got into serious difficulties.
When young couples apply for a mortgage they are now asked more and more probing questions, especially about their employment prospects. Both parties in a marriage are asked whether their jobs are secure. As a result, sometimes young couples have to settle for brokers who charge higher interest charges rather than getting help from bigger building societies. They have to shop around to try to find a firm prepared to take them on.
Where I come from, it is not so easy for a young engineer to be able to say that he has a job for life—far from it. Many engineers in the west of Scotland work for employers who may be reasonable, but make it clear to those engineers and to other workers that their jobs are not permanent. That means that it is harder for such people to get a mortgage and very hard for them to get insurance. No insurance company will take on someone who is, for example, on a fixed-term contract for three or four years, and the Minister must know that.
The Minister also states that benefit will cover those who have been deserted by their spouses. But he should be improving the situation and trying to give more assistance to those who have been deserted, particularly deserted wives. If in good faith a wife takes out a joint mortgage with her husband and he leaves her, she has the children to worry about, the emotional stress of her marriage breaking up and she will soon have to try to cope with mortgage payments as well. The Minister must know that that is very difficult.
Surely the Minister should be more interested in weeding out from the housing benefit market unscrupulous landlords who charge tenants well over the odds for property. The tenant does not always have a choice of landlord. The Minister knows that sometimes when a person from Scotland loses his job, say down here in England, he moves back up to Scotland because even without a job, at least he is back in the family circle receiving support from relatives. Sometimes that means the person has to rent a place from a private landlord. Some landlords leave a great deal to be desired. They charge terrible rates for accommodation.
A recent report showed that young students were living in dangerous conditions in my native city of Glasgow. In fact one young student lived in a fire trap, and when fire broke out, he had to jump from a two-storey building. He has been disfigured for life because of an unscrupulous landlord. The Minister should be going after those landlords, not people who are easily exploited.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not speak for too long. Scottish Homes, which is responsible for the housing association movement in Scotland, has brought in a system known as assured tenancies. When a new tenant moves into a housing association property and becomes an assured tenant, he is not able to go to the rent officer. The Minister will also know that those housing associations are getting involved in what is known as joint ventures, where private sector money is being invested in new build. Part of that deal is that the private sector is always able to get its money back.
If the tenants are assured tenants and have no recourse to the rent officer, they face a double problem. They cannot go to the rent officer, so if their rent increases, those who are unfortunate enough to be on social security will not receive any assistance from the Minister's Department. It is time that the Minister tried to help people who are in difficulties rather than trying to hinder them.

Ms Liz Lynne: The announcement by the Secretary of State for Social Security last month that he was to backtrack on some of the proposals for income support mortgage interest payments and housing benefit was welcome, even though the concessions were only very small. He should not have thought about penalising carers, the sick, remand prisoners, people suffering from AIDS or deserted partners with children in the first place. It is scandalous that he proposed to remove income support and tighten up the housing rules for those people. The housing association charities and the voluntary organisations that provide care and support will, fortunately, be able to function. But, again, the Secretary of State should not have thought of penalising them in the first place.
Vulnerable groups will still face tremendous problems, especially in relation to income support mortgage interest payments. The Secretary of State has accepted only certain of the Social Security Advisory Committee's proposals. I welcome the fact that he has accepted them, but he has not accepted the proposals for seasonal workers and part-time workers. He has not thought about deferring the changes until April 1996, as the Social Security Advisory Committee proposed. He has not introduced help for existing borrowers who switch to a new lender.
The main problem concerns seasonal workers and part-time workers. If people take a job for 12 weeks in the summer and are then out of work, they will lose their benefit. If they do not take that job they will lose their benefit anyway, so they cannot win. Their unemployment benefit will be cut. The Association of British Insurers said that it would not cover seasonal workers and part-time workers, remand prisoners or deserted partners. The Government have made an exception in two of those cases; why not in the third? Why have they not made an exception for seasonal workers and part-time workers? What will happen to that group of people? They will not


be able to obtain benefit and they cannot obtain insurance. They will face repossession and homelessness. It will cost the taxpayer more in the long run.
As for the time scale, the Under-Secretary of State seems to have a blind faith in the fact that everything will be in place by October. Is he seriously telling the House that someone who becomes unemployed in October will be able to receive cover? I should appreciate it if he would clarify that when he answers tonight. The number of people claiming income support for mortgage interest has fallen since 1993, so one would have thought that the Government might have considered the position to be under control. It is a cost-effective way of keeping families housed.
Another stupid policy that the Government have introduced is to penalise those who switch lenders to receive a lower interest rate. All that will happen is that those borrowers will stay with their existing lender and will not switch. In the long term that will cost the Treasury more.
On the subject of housing benefit, I welcome the Government's decision to exempt non-profit-making accommodation offering care, supervision and support, but the Government lack courage. They are not facing up to what has happened and the reasons why the bill for housing benefit has soared. The cost of housing benefit has soared because the Government have forced up council rents and housing association rents and there has also been an increase in rents in the private sector. I know that the Minister will try to deal with that problem, but the growth in housing benefit is a deliberate Government policy. If it were not, why would the Government have introduced policies that have contributed to it? The subsidy for bricks and mortar was removed and given to the individual for housing benefits. The Government's approach is that of a motorist who blames the temperature gauge when the car overheats.
I am concerned about private tenants because they do not have any negotiating strength. What do they do if the landlord will not bring down the rent? They have to move or make up the shortfall from their meagre benefits or low income. The Minister is placing them in an impossible position. There will be a growth in rent arrears and homelessness. According to Shelter's research, in 1993, 19 per cent. of its clients came to see it about rent arrears and housing benefit problems. One fifth of homeless families come from the private rented sector. The reduction in housing benefit for landlords will mean that they will stop performing essential maintenance work. They will say, "We're not getting enough money, so we will not do the repairs." A lot of private rented accommodation is already in an appalling condition. People who cannot afford it may be forced out of rented accommodation and there is often no other low-rent accommodation in their areas.
The Government could assist by releasing the council housing receipts so that local authorities could build more low-rent housing. The Secretary of State for Social Security groans about that but, in trying to shift more people out of local authority housing and into the private rented sector, he has introduced measures that will penalise people in the private rented sector. The Secretary of State is taking entirely the wrong approach.
Local authorities can restrict housing benefit if people are in over-large accommodation or if the accommodation is too expensive. They have the power to do that at

present. The Government reforms fall between two stools: they hit the vulnerable and they do not save the taxpayer any money. I oppose the regulations because I believe that they will cause real hardship and increase homelessness. The Government have yet again failed to see the knock-on effect of their actions. Until that lesson is learned, the taxpayer and the most vulnerable in society will continue to suffer.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Earlier today the Minister accused my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of being gloomy and doom-laden. However, I listened to the Minister's speech and I detected a rather strong rose-coloured tint to his glasses. He seems completely oblivious to the insecurity and misery that his Government have created among people on average and below-average incomes. The measures that the Government have introduced tonight will do nothing to relieve that sense of insecurity.
The Minister talked about the economic recovery, but the improvements in the market and in the economy that occurred after black Wednesday are now slowing down. There is no wonderful recovery—unless the Government seek to stimulate it artificially with tax cuts, which is presumably what the measures are about. As I attempted to suggest in an earlier exchange, any tax cuts that the Government may hand out before the next election will not compensate for the tax increases that they have imposed already. Nor will they take into account the extra charges that people will have to meet as a result of tonight's measures.
Like his right hon. and hon. Friends, including the Prime Minister, the Minister mentioned the Skipton building society. It has received a lot of free advertising courtesy of Conservative Members in recent weeks. He did not respond to the suggestion that, contrary to what the Minister and his colleagues try to promote, all may not be well in the building society sector. I have been in touch with the 17 building societies that are as large as or have a larger asset base than the Skipton building society, and there is little evidence that they are rushing to follow its lead. The Bradford and Bingley building society said:
The Society is concerned that the Government is seeking to transfer obligations from the public to the private sector especially when those involved are potentially the most vulnerable in society".
The Nationwide building society said:
We have no plans to offer 'free' insurance on an ongoing basis as this is not sustainable; the cost involved would have to be covered by borrowers in one way or another".
The Portman building society said that it already offers mortgage protection insurance, and added:
We currently charge for these services and have no plans to change that policy.
A person with an average mortgage who is worried about insecurity or losing his job is faced with charges of about £5 a week—far more than the Government will give to people on average or below-average incomes in any tax giveaway. The Government seem more concerned about doing away with inheritance tax than helping those on low incomes. I support everything that has been said by Opposition Members in opposition to these mean-minded regulations.
On housing benefit, the Government again will create more misery and will put people at risk. The measure is contradictory to the Government's espoused policy of


promoting the private rented sector. In the recent White Paper, the Government recognised that small landlords were worried about ensuring that rent is paid regularly. People on low incomes find it easier to find accommodation if landlords can be confident that rents will be paid. What will the measures do to improve that confidence?
The Government are also promoting rent guarantee schemes, and I am involved in such a scheme in Birmingham. These schemes will be put at risk, as landlords will not be willing to take on people on low incomes if they know that the housing benefit will not cover the rent. Benefits at the moment are not sufficient to enable people to meet any shortfall that may exist.
It is common on the continent for the benefit system not to cover the full cost of rental, but basic benefit on the continent is much more generous than it is here. That may be a practice that we could follow. If we looked at the base amounts of benefit and gave people more money in their pockets, it really would give those people choice. The Government talk about choice, but what choice do people on low incomes and seeking rented accommodation have in Tory Britain? Very little.
Finally, housing associations are extremely concerned about whether the housing associations as managing agents initiative—a ministerial initiative from 1991—can continue. The initiative is a good idea, and was designed to help bring empty private properties back into use. The housing associations say that the scheme will be put in jeopardy unless it is given an exemption from the measure, and they call for the introduction of a mechanism to appeal against rent officer determinations. I have been pretty unkind to the Minister, but perhaps I could finish by asking him—in the nicest possible way—if he will consider exempting such schemes from the regulations, if nothing else.

Mr. Bradley: I shall be brief in summary. We have had an interesting, if short, debate. I say to the Minister that we are as keen as the Leader of the Opposition to reduce the housing benefit budget. We believe that the problem has been caused by the Government deregulating rents in the Housing Act 1988, and by the way in which they have allowed housing subsidies—through a transfer to the individual from bricks and mortar—to take the strain of their policies. That could be quickly rectified by allowing houses to be built at rents that people can afford. The housing benefit budget would then reduce.
The Minister redefined negative equity for us tonight. It was a useful new concept. He said that mortgage holders must take account of the proceeds of their endowment mortgage which they may get in 25 years' time if they manage to make all the payments during that period and if they have not moved in the meantime to a house whose price was lower than the mortgage they wanted. That was some new evidence on negative equity, for which the public outside will be grateful. They now know that they are not in negative equity, even if the figures that they have for their mortgage and for their current house price would tend to confirm that they are. I am grateful to the Minister for his new analysis of that matter.
I must press the Minister on two issues. First, will he confirm that most private insurance policies do not pay out for the first 60 or, more usually, 90 days? How are people to take out private insurance to cover the first eight-week gap that the Government are creating by their change in policy?
Secondly, and most important, the Minister did not comment on private rented supported housing schemes. I asked him a number of questions, but why did he not answer them? Why have such schemes not been included in the concessions? Many bodies such as local authorities use organisations like Barnardo's which then use high-quality, carefully monitored, private sector housing schemes, especially adult placement schemes. Why will these now be subject to benefit cuts under the new regulations? I must press the Minister for answers.
As I said, we shall be voting against the regulations because they are a testament to the Government's inadequate response to people's real needs, whether they be in the private rented sector or own their own homes.

Mr. Roger Evans: The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) should treat Mr. Kaletsky with a little more care. Significantly, Mr. Kaletsky's point was that statisticians have assumed for the purpose of negative equity that repayment mortgages are 100 per cent. of the market whereas we know that they were less than 20 per cent. at the material time. Statistically that is rather important. People's endowment policies after, say, five years—most of the mortgages that went wrong were taken out five years ago at the height of the boom—have a substantial value. It is nonsense to compare like with dislike. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman appears wholly unaware of the fact that quite apart from cashing them in, or surrendering them with a penalty, one can assign such things. They do have a value and are perfectly acceptable security. He is simply showing ignorance of the commercial world.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about private insurance and why there was a 60 or 90-day waiting period. Lending institutions have already accepted that such a pause at the beginning is not going to be a ground for repossession. The hon. Gentleman should understand that when one takes out insurance, the longer the waiting period for which one opts—it may be a matter of choice if one has savings or equity—the cheaper the insurance. That is sensibly a matter for individual judgment and negotiation.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) mentioned the cost of insurance. Building societies' margins are at a historic two-decade high of 2 per cent., which is why the Skipton building society is able to offer this insurance free. It is also why, despite a private Labour party survey from which we heard only two examples and a private enterprise survey of which we heard from another Labour Member, we are assured by the Association of British Insurers that insurance will be in place for the October start date. The Association of British Insurers would be very unhappy about any deferment.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) expressed concern about landlords. However, the Government are concerned that under the existing arrangements some landlords in some circumstances have


been dealing neither ssensibly nor fairly with tenants or taxpayers. The purpose of the local reference rent system is to introduce an element of control.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 256.

Division No. 206]
[9.18 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Donohoe, Brian H


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dowd, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Allen, Graham
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Etherington, Bill


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Austin-Walker, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Battle, John
Fraser, John


Bayley, Hugh
Fyfe, Maria


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Galbraith, Sam


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gapes, Mike


Bell, Stuart
Garrett, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
George, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew F
Gerrard, Neil


Bermingham, Gerald
Godman, Dr Norman A


Berry, Roger
Godsiff, Roger


Betts.Clive
Gokding, Mrs Llin


Blunkett, David
Graham, Thomas


Boateng, Paul
Griffiths, Win (Biidgend)


Bradley, Keith
Gunnell, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hain, Peter


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hanson, David


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hardy, Peter


Burden, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Byers, Stephen
Harvey, Nick


Caborn, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hodge, Margaret


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hoey, Kate


Cann, Jamie
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Chidgey, David
Hood, Jimmy


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoon, Geoffrey


Church, Judith
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Clapham, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ann
Illstey, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Ingram, Adam


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jamieson, David


Corbett, Robin
Jarnner, Greville


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnston, Sir Russell


Corston, Jean
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cummings, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jowell, Tessa


Darling, Alistair
Keen, Alan


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Khabra, Piara S


Denham, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry





Litherland, Robert
Raynsford, Nick


Livingstone, Ken
Rendel, David


Loyden, Eddie
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAllion, John
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum
Rooney, Terry


McKelvey, William
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


McLeish, Henry
Rowlands, Ted


McMaster, Gordon
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


MacShane, Denis
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maddock, Diana
Short, Clare


Mahon, Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meale.Alan
Spellar, John


Michael, Alun
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stevenson, George


Milbum, Alan
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Miller, Andrew
Straw, Jack


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Timms, Stephen


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Tipping, Paddy


Mowlam, Marjorie
Touhig, Don


Mudie, George
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Tyler, Paul


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wareing, Robert N


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Watson, Mike


Olner, Bill
Welsh, Andrew


O'Neill, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Pearson, Ian
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pendry, Tom
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L
Wise, Audrey


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wray, Jimmy


Primarolo, Dawn
Wright Dr Tony


Purchase, Ken
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Ayes:


Radice, Giles
Mr. Joe Benton and


Randall, Stuart
Ms Estelle Morris.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Alexander, Richard
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Booth, Hartley


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bowis, John


Ashby, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brandreth, Gyles


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Bright, Sir Graham


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baldry, Tony
Browning, Mrs Angela


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burns, Simon


Bates, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butcher, John


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Butterfill, John






Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Horam, John


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cash, William
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clappison, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunter, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coe, Sebastian
Jack, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Congdon, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Conway, Derek
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Connack, Sir Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cran, James
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
' King, Rt Hon Tom


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dicks, Terry
Knox, Sir David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dover, Den
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Duncan, Allan
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Legg, Barry


Dunn, Bob
Leigh, Edward


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Elletson, Harold
Lidington, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lightbown, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Andrew


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Madel, Sir David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Malone, Gerald


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Mans, Keith


French, Douglas
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Tony


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gardiner, Sir George
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garnier, Edward
Merchant, Piers


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moate, Sir Roger


Grant, SirA(SWCambs)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, Rt Hon William
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hannam, Sir John
Ottaway, Richard


Harris, David
Page, Richaid


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Paice, James


Hawkins, Nick
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Pawsey, James


Heald, Oliver
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hendry, Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hicks, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Richards, Rod





Riddick, Graham
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Robathan, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thomason, Roy


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thurnham, Peter


Sackville, Tom
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trend, Michael


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shersby, Sir Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sims, Roger
Walden, George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waterson, Nigel


Spink, Dr Robert
Watts, John


Spring, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Sproat, Iain
Whittingdale, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stephen, Michael
Willetts, David


Stern, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Allan
Wolfson.Mark


Streeter, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Sumberg, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sweeney, Walter



Sykes, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question put,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Income Support and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulaions 1995 (S. I., 1995, No. 1613), dated 26th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be annulled.—[Mr. Dewar.]

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 252.

Division No. 207]
[9.31 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Burden, Richard


Ainger, Nick
Byers, Stephen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cabom, Richard


Allen, Graham
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Austin-Walker, John
Campbell-Savours, D N


Banks, Tony (Newharn NW)
Cann, Jamie


Barnes, Harry
Chidgey, David


Barron, Kevin
Chisholm, Malcolm


Battle, John
Church, Judith


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Clwyd, Mrs Am


Bermingham, Gerald
Coffey, Ann


Berry, Roger
Cohen, Harry


Betts, Clive
Connarty, Michael


Blunkett, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Boateng, Paul
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bradley, Keith
Corbett, Robin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Corston, Jean






Cousins, Jim
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cox, Tom
Lewis, Terry


Cummings, John
Litherland, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAllion, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McCartney, Ian


Denham, John
Macdonald, Calum


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dobson, Frank
McLeish Henry


Donohoe, Brian H
McMaster, Gordon


Dowd, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
MacShane, Denis


Eagle, Ms Angela
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Etherington, Bill
Maddock, Diana


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mahon, Alice


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Flynn, Paul
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maxton, John


Fraser, John
Meacher, Michael


Fyfe, Maria
Meale, Alan


Galbraith, Sam
Michael, Alun


Gapes, Mike
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Garrett, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


George, Bruce
Milburn, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Miller, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mitchell, Austin (Great Grimsby)


Godsiff, Roger
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Golding, Mrs Llin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Graham, Thomas
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Gunnel, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hain, Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hanson, David
Mudie, George


Hardy, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Ms Harriet
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Henderson, Doug
Olner, Bill


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hodge, Margaret
Pearson, Ian


Hoey, Kate
Pendry, Tom


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pike, Peter L


Hood, Jimmy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Primarolo, Dawn


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Purchase, Ken


Hoyle, Doug
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Raynsford, Nick


Hutton, John
Rendel, David


Illsley, Eric
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Ingram, Adam
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rogers, Allan


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Rooker, Jeff


Jamieson, David
Rooney, Terry


Janner, Greville
Ross, Ernie (Dundee West)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jowell, Tessa
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Keen, Alan
Short, Clare


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Skinner, Dennis


Khabra, Piara S
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kirkwood, Archy
Smyth, The Reverend Martin





Snape, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Spearing, Nigel
Wareing, Robert N


Spellar, John
Watson, Mike


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Welsh, Andrew


Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wray, Jimmy


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wright Dr Tony


Timms, Stephen
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Tipping, Paddy



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dennis
Mr. Joe Benton and


Tyler, Paul
Ms Estelle Morris




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dicks, Terry


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arbuthnot, James
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan, Alan


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Ashby, David
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Elletson, Harold


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baldry, Tony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Batiste, Spencer
Evennett David


Bellingham, Henry
Faber, David


Bendall, Vivian
Fabricant, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Forth, Eric


Boswell, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bowis, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Brandreth, Gyles
Gallie, Phil


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, Sir George


Bright Sir Graham
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gill, Christopher


Browning, Mrs Angela
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burns, Simon
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butcher, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butler, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cash, William
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Clappison, James
Hannam, Sir John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Harris, David


Coe, Sebastian
Haselhurst Sir Alan


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Congdon, David
Hawksley, Warren


Conway, Derek
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heald, Oliver


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hendry, Charles


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hicks, Robert


Cran, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Horam, John


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Day, Stephen
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)






Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'dn S)


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Roger


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Rt. Hon. Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Darne Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knox, Sir David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spring, Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sproat, Iain


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Legg, Barry
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Leigh, Edward
Stephen, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Stern, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stewart, Allan


Lidington, David
Streeter, Gary


Lightbown, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sweeney, Walter


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Sykes, John


Lord, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Luff, Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Madel, Sir David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Malone, Gerald
Thurnham, Peter


Mans, Keith
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marland, Paul
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Marlow, Tony
Tredinnick, David


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Trend, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trotter, Neville


Merchant, Piers
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Moate, Sir Roger
Walden, George


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waller, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Whittingdale, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Widdecombe, Ann


Oppenneim, Phillip
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Ottaway, Richard
Willetts, David


Page, Richard
Wilshire, David


Paice, James
Wolfson, Mark


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Yeo.Tim


Patten, Rt Hon John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Pawsey, James



Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tellers for the Noes:


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Mr. Timothy Wood and Dr. Liam Fox.


Porter, David (Waveney)

Question accordingly negatived.

Parliamentary Pensions

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That this House endorses the proposals for changes in Members' pension scheme benefits to increase the death in service gratuity to three times the Member's annual salary, to allow Members to nominate individuals, institutions and trusts to receive the death in service gratuity and, when the Pensions Bill is enacted and relevant Regulations under it made, to establish a formal dispute resolution procedure as recommended in the SSRB Report on the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme laid on Thursday 30th March (Cm 2830).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I should like to inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of Mr. Alfred Morris.

Mr. Newton: Along with all right hon. and hon. Members, I plainly have an interest to declare in the subject that we are debating.
The motion follows the publication on 30 March of the Government Actuary's latest report on the parliamentary contributory pension fund and the Senior Salaries Review Body report on its review of the parliamentary pension scheme, and the Government's response to that. The Government recommended acceptance of all but one of the SSRB's four recommendations, and I shall deal with the three that I have recommended and the one that I have not.
I should like briefly to remind the House of the background to the debate, and to do that I shall make two points. First, in 1991, the SSRB recommended that it should review the pension scheme regularly at the time of the Government Actuary's triennial valuation of the fund. This has been the first review under those arrangements, and on behalf of the House I should like to thank the members of the SSRB—particularly those who were on the special sub-committee that was set up to deal with the review—for their work.
Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the procedure for changing the scheme. Changes to the pension scheme regulations are made under the negative resolution procedure in accordance with the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987. It has, however, always been the case that the House is first given an opportunity to discuss proposals for changing the scheme before the regulations are laid; that is the purpose of the debate tonight.
I should add that, under the 1987 Act, I have a duty to consult the trustees about the regulations. I have, of course, done so and I take this opportunity to thank the trustees and their chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), on behalf of both current and former Members of Parliament and their dependants, for their valuable work, which I know is much appreciated. I have also consulted the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the chairman of the 1922 Committee.
With those brief introductory comments, I come to the SSRB's recommendations and our proposals. Three of the recommendations present little or no difficulty. Two are, in effect, procedural. The first is that the scheme should allow Members to nominate more than one individual, as well as institutions and trusts, to receive the


death-in-service gratuity. That seems sensible, and we can readily accept it. It will provide Members with the proper scope to make nominations as they see fit. I need only add a few words about its potential effect on future nominations.
The way in which the current rule operates has the effect that the nomination is ignored if it is made in favour of a person who has been the husband or wife, but who, at the time of death, is no longer so. The gratuity is then paid to the personal representatives. The intention is to treat multiple nominations in the same way. If more than one individual is named and one of the nominees has to be disregarded, the proportion of the gratuity that would have been paid to that person will pass to the personal representative. Nothing in the proposed regulations disturbs the current position, which allows Members to change their nomination at any time.
The second of the procedural recommendations is that a formal dispute resolution procedure should be established for the scheme. Again, that is entirely sensible and acceptable. The only reason why I have not already produced a draft regulation in this respect is that—I think I can say that the trustees agree—it seems sensible to wait until we have the detailed provisions which will follow the present Pensions Bill so that we can be sure that the procedures that we put in place for our scheme are consistent with the rules for schemes generally. I will, of course, consult the trustees about the terms of any such regulation before it is laid, including on the question of to whom appeals should go at the third stage. I do not envisage a further debate as long as the trustees are content with the final proposals.
The third of the SSRB's proposals that I can recommend is concerned with the benefits of the scheme. The recommendation is to improve the death-in-service gratuity from two to three times annual salary. That change is fair and it can be justified given the particular circumstances of Members even though this aspect of the scheme now compares favourably with other public service schemes. I propose to bring that recommendation into effect from 1 April 1995.
The fourth proposal is clearly the most contentious, and is the subject of the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and a number of others. The proposal is that the rate of accrual for Members' pensions, which is currently 60ths in respect of all service before 20 July 1983 and 50ths for all service thereafter, should, in respect of those of us who are still Members of Parliament, be retrospectively improved to 50ths for the years before 1983. The Government do not feel able to recommend this proposal to the House for a number of reasons, which I shall set out in a moment.
Before doing so, I should briefly make clear precisely who is and who is not affected by the proposal, as one or two comments that have been made to me in the Corridors suggest that there may have been some misunderstanding. As I have said, the proposal concerns only periods of service before 20 July 1983. It follows that no one first elected in 1987 or 1992, or at a by-election in those 12 years, is affected in any way at all. The number in the unaffected category is 362—more than half the House. Those elected in 1983 are affected only to a very small extent: the improved accrual rate would apply only to a short period of service between June and July. The number in that category is 104.
Thus, the total number of Members who are either unaffected, or affected to a degree that might be described as de minimis, is 466. The remainder would have an improvement in their pension rights, the size of which would depend on the extent of their service before 1983.

Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton: May I first finish this point, because it concerns me? Having already declared a general interest, I should make it clear that the number of those whose pension would be improved beyond a de minimis amount includes me, as I was first elected in February 1974. In view of the arguments that I am about to adduce, I suppose that that could be described as a perverse interest.

Mr. Harris: I declare an interest in this matter. Would my right hon. Friend care to inform the House what would be the position of those hon. Members who were elected to the European Parliament in 1979 but entered this House in 1983? Would they be affected by the provisions?

Mr. Newton: Yes, I think that they would because the same pension scheme applies to Members of the European Parliament as well.

Sir Peter Fry: May I declare my interest, in that I was here before 1983? I am fascinated as to why my right hon. Friend suggests that our widows should be helped—so they will benefit after we are dead through the death-in-service payment—but apparently resists any attempt to help us while we are still alive.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend puts his point in a characteristically good-natured way. I am afraid that the rather more solemn answer is that the proposed improvement in the form of the death-in-service gratuity is, in effect, from a current date and therefore has no retrospective element, whereas the proposal to improve the accrual rate for years in service now more than 10 years ago is an entirely retrospective proposal. That raises additional arguments, to which I shall come shortly.

Sir Andrew Bowden: I declare an interest, in that I was elected to this House in 1970. I hope that, by emphasising to the House how many Members are not affected, my right hon. Friend is not using that as an argument to persuade hon. Members to vote against the amendment. That would be wrong, because only those affected should be allowed to vote.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, too, puts his point in a characteristically good-natured way. I set out the facts and figures in the way that I did, not as an argument against the amendment but simply because it had become apparent, talking to a number of our more recently elected colleagues in the Corridors in the past week or so, that some of them were harbouring hopes that would be disappointed in respect of what they might get out of this debate. I meant no more than that.
In picking up what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) said a few moments ago, I should first remind the House that this is not a new argument but one that took place some four years ago when the former Top Salaries Review Body—the forerunner of the current Senior Salaries Review Body—made a similar recommendation and when the House accepted the Government's view that it should be rejected.
In setting out the issue which the House as a whole must face and address as a matter of public policy, I can do no better than quote what my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), said in the debate almost exactly four years ago on 18 July 1991:
the TSRB did not point to other schemes, public or private, which have adopted that approach on accrual. If we adopted that retrospective change—which is what it would be—we should be under strong pressure to make similar changes to other public service schemes and the repercussions could be very expensive. I do not believe that it is possible to justify going back almost two full Parliaments"—
it would now be nearer three—
to undo a decision made eight years ago, and never questioned in the interim. Moreover, it is a particularly unnecessary change as provision already exists for Members to purchase added years at the improved rate of accrual. Those who have chosen not to upgrade their pension have obviously felt that they had good reason for not doing so.
Of course, many of our colleagues did upgrade their pensions. I believe that the choice should continue to be left to the individual Member."—[Official Report, 18 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 615.]
Those arguments weigh substantially and are compelling today, as they were then.

Mr. John Garrett: They may be arguments, but they are all flimsy arguments. How many public service schemes changed from 50ths to 60ths at that time? When that speech was given, the Treasury contributed 4.5 per cent. and we contributed 9 per cent. to the fund. Surely, the point is that this is not a generous scheme by any manner of means compared with civil service and public service schemes because of, for example, the severance arrangements.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has skated away from the point that was a significant ingredient in what my right hon. Friend said four years ago and in what was said in the House only a fortnight ago in discussions on possible improvements to the armed forces pension scheme in respect of pre-1973 cases. After that debate, the House voted against a retrospective change, which might be said to be comparable in some respects, by 199 votes to 41, I think it was, with the official Opposition Front-Bench team advising hon. Members not to vote for the amendment. That needs to be borne in mind. The key point is whether the scheme is retrospective, not whether there should be the improvements in the scheme that I am proposing now in respect of the death-in-service benefit. The issue is whether those changes should be made retrospectively.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend more or less saying to those of us who did make up our contributions to change them from 60ths to 50ths, that that was money down the drain?

Mr. Newton: I shall come to that point. Clearly, whatever else, that would not be acceptable to anyone.
As I have already said, especially in the light of the recent debates that the House has had on other matters, in the Government's view the arguments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South put forward in 1991 are no less compelling now than they were when the House accepted them. In one respect, they are even more compelling as, at that time, there was a surplus of £7

million in the fund, to which the Top Salaries Review Body referred in making its proposals, and which might at least have made it possible to make such a change without having to raise contributions to pay for it. That is not the position now, however. As a result of the numerous other improvements made in 1991, little more than £1 million remains as a surplus in the fund, and once the death-in-service proposal, which is part of my proposals, has been put into place, the surplus will be no more than £300,000.
Unless Members' contributions are to be raised so that all Members have their take-home pay reduced to improve the pensions of less than a third, there would have to be an increase in the Exchequer contribution—that is to say, from the taxpayer—to fund the improvement. It is estimated that accepting the accruals proposal as it stands would mean an increase in capital terms of £2.3 million or, looking at it in another way, of about £480,000 each year until the year 2000.

Sir Terence Higgins: Is it not the case that the present state of the fund reflects the fact that, on previous occasions, the Treasury has taken every possible opportunity to reduce its contribution? On the comparison with the civil service scheme, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether that is a contributory scheme?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend, with his long experience, knows as well as anyone in the House that the civil service scheme is not a contributory scheme. The argument is always, as he well knows, that that fact is taken into account in determining the salaries, but there is no getting away from the fact—nor do I seek to disguise it—that this is a contributory scheme and that the civil service scheme is not. Alongside this important general argument stand a number of practical considerations, which perhaps help to show why retrospective changes of the kind proposed are such a dubious course. I shall mention two in particular, one of which will bring me to the thought raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).

Mr. John Butterfill: When my right hon. Friend talks about the comparison between the civil service scheme and the scheme for Members, can he advise the House whether, when the House voted to link its pay with that of an appropriate grade of civil servant, it voted to do so in terms of both the salary and the pension contribution, or were they entirely separate?

Mr. Newton: I do not think it was I who introduced any comparison of that kind, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). Leaving that aside, my understanding, and the reality, is that the House has voted on the linkage between the pay of Members of Parliament and pay at a particular level in the civil service, taking account of all the factors involved. As I have said, there is no mystery about the fact that the basis of—

It being Ten o'clock, consideration of the motion stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),

That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill, to the Child Support Bill and to the Criminal Appeal Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour, and the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to


Parliamentary Pensions may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Newton: There is no mystery about the fact that the pension arrangements in the civil service are on a different basis from those for Members of Parliament.
I hope that the House will realise that certain practical difficulties need to be addressed. First, as I have already indicated by quoting from the previous debate, since 1983 Members have had the right, and I judge from what she said that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster has probably used it, to purchase added years of service. If they did so during the first two years after 1983, they were able to do so at a discounted rate. Many did so. Those who did not, of whom I am one, will obviously benefit from the proposal in the amendment, but the question then arises—exactly the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster—of how in fairness to treat those who did purchase added years.
One possibility, presumably, would be to refund what those Members paid in respect of what would now be provided by the Exchequer. The other, which is what the SSRB report and the amendment of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe appear to envisage, is that they should be treated as having their years of service augmented so that they continue to benefit from the extra that they have chosen to pay, as well as the extra that the amendment would provide. However, that would produce the situation in which some Members would have an entitlement exceeding the maximum allowed by Inland Revenue rules. So once again, we would have to face—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many Members?"] It is important that the House should understand those complications. We would have to face the issue of refunds, whether interest should be paid, and if so, at what rate and so on. There could be yet further complications arising from the interaction between the basic scheme—

Mr. Garrett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: Yes, of course I will give way. I have shown that I am willing to give way, but I should like to complete a sentence before I do so. Still further complications could arise from the interaction between the basic scheme and the scheme for additional voluntary contributions introduced last year.

Mr. Garrett: Is it not the case that to exceed the Inland Revenue threshold, a Member of Parliament would have had to have spent 40 years here? Therefore, the number affected is few. The right hon. Gentleman continually refers to those hundreds of Members of Parliament who will not benefit from such a proposed scheme, but they will not benefit because they are on 50ths already.

Mr. Newton: That latter point has been acknowledged in everything that I have said. They will not benefit because the improvement in 1983 meant that, since 1983, all of us, whether new Members or old, have been accruing at a rate of 50ths. That does not get away from the argument that I have been putting to the House about whether it is right to backdate that accrual before 1983. In the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, he, in effect, confirmed what I said. In some cases, that

possible tangle would arise. I do not say that it is insuperable, but it is one of the things that the House must register.

Sir Peter Tapsell: I do not think that that is a serious point. As it happens, I am advised by the Fees Office that I qualified for the maximum two-thirds pension some time ago, but I have elected to go on contributing to the pension fund of Members of Parliament. I am told that I could go on until I am entitled to a 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. pension if my electors go on re-electing me. I am assured that there is no problem about that, so why not just enhance the thing?

Mr. Newton: I have said that, in my view at least, there could be a problem of, as it were, running into the ceiling. I know that a number of Members have said, "Well, that could be dealt with in one way or another." Indeed, I am not saying that those problems are insuperable, but they are a factor of which the House should be aware.
The second, and in my view much more serious practical problem, is the inequity which would arise between Members and ex-Members in respect of service in the House in the same period. As I have said, the SSRB's proposal and the amendment of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe relate only to those of us who are still Members of the House. In other words, a pension in respect of—to take my own case, 1974 to 1983—would be increased for someone like myself who happens to be still here, but unaltered for those who were here in precisely the same years and who happen to have left for whatever reason in the intervening period. I frankly think that it would be very hard indeed to defend that as being in any way fair.
The complexities of seeking to include ex-Members, let alone their survivors or legatees, are all too obvious and they may well prove insuperable. Moreover, the costs would certainly be significantly greater. On a rough estimate, against the £2.3 million in capital terms for the right hon. Gentleman's amendment to which I have referred, we would be talking about something like an extra £7 million, which the taxpayer would have to find. I said earlier that I believe the arguments against the amendment to be compelling. I hope that I have shown why I hold that view and I hope that the House will reject the amendment and agree on my motion as proposed.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 4, after 'gratuity', insert
'to apply the existing accrual rate of fiftieths to all service for
currently sitting Members in respect of their future pension entitlement, with appropriate augmentation for those who have been making up the shortfall voluntarily'.
The amendment stands in my name, as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund, and those of all my fellow trustees. It was trailed by early-day motion 1223, which has 354 signatories and the support of many other right hon. and hon. Members who, as office holders of one kind or another, are unable to sign early-day motions. It reflects deep and growing concern in all parts of the House about an official attitude to the pension fund that is seen not only as unjust, but as damaging now to the whole basis on which changes to the pension fund are processed by the Senior Salaries Review Body. More and more hon. Members are questioning the point of having an


independent review body whose major recommendations in two successive reports in the space of four years can be set aside, as will have happened in this case if the managing trustees' amendment is not approved tonight.
In 1991, in Cmnd 1576, the review body first recommended an accrual rate of 50ths in the following terms:
We recommend that the existing accrual rate of fiftieths should be applied to all service for currently sitting MPs in respect of their future pension entitlement, with appropriate augmentation for those who have been making up the shortfall voluntarily.
That recommendation was anything but extreme. In fact the House had resolved 11 years earlier in July 1980 that the accrual rate should be one 40th of final salary for each year of service. Nevertheless, the review body's 1991 recommendation was not accepted by the Government and, when it was again asked to report on the fund in the current parliamentary Session, its report—Cmnd 2330—reaffirmed the 1991 recommendation in virtually identical terms.
But it was made clear immediately that the Government would again resist the recommendation. One reason given was that a part of the total cost—now reduced to £2.3 million from £3 million in 1991—would fall on the Exchequer. As the Leader of the House knows, that was not well received by hon. Members who recall what happened to the fund in 1983. I hasten to add that the right hon. Gentleman was in no way personally involved in the decision then, in effect, to raid the pension fund to offset part of the cost of an award from the review body on parliamentary pay by gratuitously increasing the Member's contribution to the fund to a wholly unnecessary 9 per cent. of salary. There was no talk then of the consequential effects of that huge increase on others in the public service. It would have been too ridiculous for words; and indeed, as we have heard tonight, the civil service has a non-contributory pension scheme while judges, I believe, have an accrual rate of 15ths.
The decision to impose a contribution of 9 per cent. on Members of Parliament—of which some have claimed authorship for Edward du Cann—was totally unrelated to the financial needs of the pension fund at the time, but of direct and substantial benefit to the Exchequer. It was a clear case of manipulating a pension fund at the Member's expense, a technique later refined and perfected by others and which is now being legislated against.
That is but one reason why it is not for Ministers to complain ever again of members of the fund unfairly benefiting at the expense of the Exchequer. As I have shown in previous debates on the fund, the Exchequer contribution was seriously and most unfairly out of line with what the Member had to pay over an extended period after 1983. Again, the Exchequer was for many years the main beneficiary of the managing trustees' investment policy. For far too long we were, in fact, victims of our own success in that the more that policy succeeded, the more disproportionately it helped the Exchequer.
The trustees' latest proposals to the review body were not confined to the accrual rate. We sought a range of improvements to benefit past and present Members alike and their dependants. The trustees are not alone in believing that more could and should be done to help retired Members, to assist the widows of our former colleagues and to improve the fund's provision for early

retirement. Among our other proposals to the SSRB, the trustees also asked for an improvement in the death-in-service benefit.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a good point from the Front Bench. How can we justify retrospection for our pension scheme and not justify it for the armed services pension schemes?

Mr. Morris: There are many of us who feel that retrospection is well merited in that scheme as well, but I have a particular responsibility, as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund, to do my best in that capacity, which is what I am seeking to do in this debate.
As the Leader of the House has explained, the review body concluded that only four changes should be made to the fund, of which the Government, as they oppose the now reaffirmed recommendation on the accrual rate, accept only three. Of those, the improvement to the death-in-service benefit is, of course, welcomed by the trustees and we are glad that it is to be given retrospective effect, which means that the widow of our late and much-missed colleague Geoffrey Dickens will not lose from the lapse of several months since the review body reported in March. The trustees also welcome the other two recommendations, but these are matters of procedure and not benefit improvements.
As the law stands, only when proposals for change to the fund are recommended by the review body can this House amend the provisions of the fund. We cannot do so on our own initiative. Essentially our role is thus to propose and it is for the review body to dispose. It is for that reason that I must emphasise again that it is the independent review body's judgment, twice stated, first in 1991 and again in 1995, that improvement in the accrual rate is, and has been for four years now, a priority for change.
As soon as I knew of the Government's intention to oppose the change, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I inquired whether the review body might be prepared, in the event that its principal recommendation was again rejected, to substitute for an improved accrual rate some other change, or changes of equal value from the range of improvements sought by the trustees—a better deal, for example, for widows and/or for retired members of the fund—but the answer was that what is on offer is what is in the review body's report and nothing else. So anyone who thinks that to reject the recommendation on the accrual rate might help others must understand that that is not the case.

Mr. Tom Cox: My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware that I am one of the trustees of the parliamentary Labour party benevolent fund. All hon. Members can recall many colleagues from various political parties who left this place in very poor circumstances and who have never received a proper pension. The same is true of the wives of colleagues who have passed on. We might not be able to do anything for them, but my right hon. Friend is seeking in his amendment to ensure that ex-Members of Parliament and the wives of those colleagues who may pass on will begin to receive a reasonable pension to support them in their old age. Sadly, many former colleagues and their wives do not receive such a pension at present.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I very much admire his work and that of his colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party's benevolent fund, just as I hold in very high regard those in the 1922 Committee who perform similar work for their former colleagues who now live in circumstances of hardship.
There is one other matter on which I must briefly report to the House. The trustees have an important role in considering changes to the fund's provisions and we have taken legal advice in relation to our duties and responsibilities. The advice is unequivocally clear. It is that it is proper for the trustees, in considering what is best for Members, to regard recommendations of the review body as a proper guide for their decisions. We are advised also that it is not proper for the trustees to have regard to the fact that the Government's policy is not to implement particular recommendations of the review body. The advice proceeds:
The Trustees would accordingly be right to use what Parliamentary means they have to cause amending regulations to be made by the Leader of the House to implement the Review Body's recommendation in question".
We are further enjoined—on the basis of expert, impartial and independent advice—to accept that:
The Review Body bases its recommendations on what is good current practice in pension schemes and what, in particular, would be fair to Members (of any class under consideration), balancing the burden of contributions against the benefit of higher pensions".
Interestingly as well, our advice states:
It is the Leader of the House, and not a person as Minister of the Crown, who makes the amending regulations. Hence is preserved, in law and principle, the independence of these crucial decisions from Government policy, as distinct from the collective view of the House".

Mr. David Shaw: I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman might explain at some point why the trustees are not recommending an accrual rate that is more akin to the average service of a Member of Parliament. My predecessor served the House and the Government loyally for 17 years, and I understand that that is much closer to the average service of most Members of Parliament—although there are different views. Why do we still have an accrual rate of 50ths and 60ths, when the average length of service of a Member of Parliament is much less?

Mr. Morris: There are a great many points that I could make in my speech, but it must be limited out of consideration for hon. Members on both sides of the House who want a decision on the amendment as quickly as possible tonight. As the hon. Member implies, the longevity of Members of Parliament is not great. On average, they serve something like 13 years and three months. I cannot recall the precise figure, but it is of that order. As I have said, judges base their pensions on an accrual rate of 15ths. Of course, no hon. Member is likely to serve 60 years here, and it is a virtual certainty that very few—perhaps not even the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—will achieve 50 years. That is why Members on both sides of the House say that we should have been asking the SSRB for 40ths and not 50ths. Yet even the figure of 40ths is unrealistic and if one looks at what other legislatures do across the world, one finds that we are anything but profligate in this Parliament when it comes to the protecting of Members' interests.
What I have quoted from legal advice received by the trustees ought not to be unimportant to the outcome of the debate. I trust that that outcome will be the approval of the amendment and a consequential change to the draft amending regulations. In commending the amendment to the House, I want especially, and very warmly, to thank the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), together with my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) for their constant and extremely valuable help in promoting a long-overdue change to the fund. The House as a whole is much in their debt.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to speak briefly, because most hon. Members will probably have made up their minds on the issue. Like all colleagues, I must declare an interest. Many of the recommendations that are being discussed this evening apply to all of us, but the amendment applies in particular to those hon. Members who were here prior to the changes in 1983.
I want to say a few words in support of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on behalf of the trustees, and it is important to emphasise the all-party nature of the amendment and the support for it within the House. The issue before us this evening has been outlined extremely clearly, but it is important to emphasise that the key point of the debate is that it is not just hon. Members who are concerned about parliamentary pensions and the 50ths and 60ths issue before 1983. The real strength of my right hon. Friend's argument is the case that has been put and the recommendations made by the Senior Salaries Review Body, which has recommended changes that are the subject of my right hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Marlow: What reason did the SSRB give for recommending the change?

Mrs. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman cares to read the report, he will see that it is clear. I want to take the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members back one stage. In 1991, the SSRB report first recommended this particular upgrading. It did so—this may answer the specific question asked by the hon. Gentleman—on the basis that such an upgrading would be fair to those who had contributed to the surplus that was then in the pension fund. That is a very important principle, and the hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind. The recommendations were not acted on in 1991. Had they been acted on, the degree of retrospection of which the Leader of the House complains would not have been as significant as it is. The retrospective element is so significant only because the 1991 recommendations were turned down on the advice of the then Leader of the House and the Government.

Mr. Butterfill: On the question of the surplus, is not it true to say that the latest revaluation produced a surplus which enabled the Government to reduce the standard contribution from 17.5 per cent. to 6.8 per cent?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Had that Exchequer windfall—if we can call it that—not occurred, there would have been a very significant surplus in the pension fund. That is what the Senior Salaries Review Body was referring to when it made its initial


recommendation. It is a very strong point in favour of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe. It is also probably one of the reasons why the SSRB returned to the issue this year and why we are debating this recommendation now. Indeed, the amendment covers the precise wording used by the SSRB in its report, and it is one of the reasons why I recommend it to the House.
Pension matters are incredibly complex. The Leader of the House gave us some figures to show how many people would not benefit from the proposed change. It is true that there are many anomalies in many pension schemes, including our own. Indeed,, when I talked today to the Fees Office about the changes in contribution rates over the years, it became clear just how complex an issue it is.
The point that we should emphasise and which underlines our support for the amendment is that although hon. Members are in the unfortunate position of having to vote on such issues, we are not in a position to make the basic recommendations. Those recommendations come from the SSRB—we have not dreamt them up, nor have my right hon. Friend and his fellow trustees. The pension fund trustees suggested the amendment following the detailed recommendations from experts on the independent review body.

Mr. Ray Powell: Before my hon. Friend concludes, I hope that for the benefit of those outside who might be listening she will emphasise the fact that all 651 Members of Parliament contribute 9 per cent. of their salary. In addition, most people in the civil service pay for a non-contributory pension scheme.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have at times contributed 9 per cent. of our salary. The comparisons that have been made with other schemes are difficult because different people have contributed on a different basis, and the benefits that we obtain in other ways are different from those in other spheres of employment.

Mr. Newton: I do not intervene in an aggressive spirit but, in view of the exchange that has just taken place, I want to make it clear that our contribution was 9 per cent. but was reduced to 6 per cent. following the 1991 recommendations. At present, the Members' contribution is 6 per cent.

Mrs. Taylor: If the Leader of the House checks the report of the proceedings tomorrow, he will find that I said that at times we had contributed 9 per cent. I remind him of the remarks made by his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who pointed out that the Exchequer contribution had been significantly reduced. That is the basic reason why the surplus in the pension fund has been reduced so considerably over the years.
We could raise many issues related to this topic. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) talked about reducing the contributions to 40ths. I am sure that other hon. Members—perhaps many Conservative Members—would like at some time to raise the issue of severance pay and severance arrangements, which are very far from generous for Members of Parliament although they are generous in other areas. However, we cannot stray on to those issues this evening.
Our basic case is that the independent review body has clearly recommended that change twice. It has thought it right to return to that issue in 1995, in spite of the 1991 decision.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: The hon. Lady rightly drew attention to the fact that the SSRB has twice considered that and reached that conclusion. The legal advice that we have been given as trustees—and I wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) as chairman of the trustees—is that we would be failing in our duty if we did not bring that matter before the House now, and we are unanimous, as trustees, that the House should consider that and, I hope, vote for the amendment.

Mrs. Taylor: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I am happy to accept all the recommendations of the SSRB, including the recommendation that is the subject of the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe.
On behalf of many hon. Members, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the trustees on the work that they have done. I thank them for giving us the opportunity to vote for the amendment this evening, and I commend it to the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before any debate continues, may I point out that there is an inaccuracy in the tabling of the amendment? It should read "Line 4" rather than "Line 2". I think the sense is clear, but I say that for the sake of accuracy.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Madam Deputy Speaker, I did preface my speech by reading the amendment and emphasising that it was the amendment at line 4. Thank you very much.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Right.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Newton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the decision that has just been made, I shall certainly not seek a Division against the motion as amended. Obviously, under those circumstances, it would not be appropriate to proceed with laying the draft regulations, which were drawn up on the basis of what I had proposed to the House. Obviously, there are some complications that need to be tackled, as I sought to make clear in my speech, and the appropriate course now is for me to undertake further consideration and consultation and return to the trustees and the House as soon as possible.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House endorses the proposals for changes in Members' pension scheme benefits to increase the death in service gratuity to three times the Member's annual salary, to allow Members to nominate individuals, institutions and trusts to receive the death in service gratuity, to apply the existing accrual rate of fiftieths to all service for currently sitting Members in respect of their future pension entitlement, with appropriate augmentation for those who have been making up the shortfall voluntarily, and, when the Pensions Bill is enacted and relevant Regulations under it made, to establish a formal dispute resolution procedure as recommended in the SSRB Report on the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme laid on Thursday 30th March (Cm 2830).

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 121 (Committee of Privileges) be amended, in line 5, at the end, by inserting the words 'and to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House'.—[Mr. Knapman]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 19th July:
(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Standards in Public Life not later than three hours after the first such Motion has been entered upon, such Questions including the Questions on any Amendments to those Motions which she may have selected and which may then be moved;
(2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House), the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister shall lapse three hours after it has been entered upon;
(3) any Lords Message which may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour; and
(4) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Knapman]

MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Ordered,
That Mr. Andrew Mitchell be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests and Sir Archibald Hamilton be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Knapman]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Motions 15, 16 and 17 can be taken together, if there is a member of the appropriate Committee to do so. I think not. In that case, we go on to the Adjournment.

Recreational Vehicles (Green Lanes)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman]

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I rise breathless, having been caught unawares by the sudden end of business. Between my gulps of air, I welcome the opportunity provided by the debate to return to a subject that I have raised with successive Ministers during the course of several years. I do so without apology because the subject is important in its own right and of increasing concern to many people. I refer to the appalling damage inflicted each year on hundreds of miles of the unmetalled green lanes of our countryside. The problem is nationwide. Environmental damage to and the fate of the Ridgeway, Old street in Berkshire, Denton track in Cambridgeshire, Pilgrim's way in Kent and, to a lesser extent, the Harrow way and Weston Patrick track in my constituency, have attracted national attention. Those are only a few of many instances.
Many green lanes are old drove roads or drift ways, along which sheep and cattle were driven to market long before the invention of motorised vehicles. Great stretches of those ancient green lanes are reduced to muddy quagmires in wet weather and rendered almost impassable by ruts—sometimes up to 2 ft deep even in dry weather.
As for the culprits, the private landlord is by no means entirely innocent, but the main culprits are four-wheel drive, off-road vehicles and trail bikes. The increase in annual sales of 4×4s has been phenomenal. In 1984, only 8,000 were sold. Last year, sales are estimated to have exceeded 60,000. The problem seems destined to increase as the years pass, unless firm action is taken soon.
I acknowledge the responsible attitude of the Land Access and Recreation Association—LARA. Not all 4×4 owners and certainly not all 4×4 clubs are irresponsible, but too many off-roaders are ruining our ancient green lanes. Most damage is done by unclubbable rogues. They must be stopped. To compound matters, under existing legislation they are entirely within their rights to pursue their pastime on all designated byways unless the highway authority has imposed a traffic regulation order. Existing legislation allows off-roaders to commit the environmental equivalent of rape and pillage.
The underlying cause is to be found in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. To be fair, that legislation was framed before off-roading became so popular and it was not designed to deal with today's problem. Nevertheless, the 1981 Act compels county councils to reclassify all rights of way as footpaths, bridleways or byways open to all traffic. It eliminated the former category of ruts—roads used as public paths. Nationwide, many thousands of miles of tracks still have to be reclassified. At the present rate of progress, that will take decades. Hampshire, for example, has approximately 2,250 miles of rights of way. So far, only 550 miles have been reclassified.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, if historic vehicular use can be established, the right of way must be declared open to all traffic—even if vehicular use has not been continuous and predated the combustion engine. One green lane in Hampshire has been declared open to all traffic at the end of the 20th century only because horse-drawn Army vehicles used it during the Napoleonic


wars. Moreover, until 1981, under the Countryside Act 1968, councils could impose a test of suitability that gave them powers to impose restrictions on vehicles wishing to use byways. Tragically, that power has been taken from them.
The 1968 Act required amendment. It favoured people who wished to extinguish public rights, not those who sought to control vehicles. It was felt that the test of suitability was a threat to ancient rights of way, but that was before the advent of the off-roaders. Paradoxically and contradictiously, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 reclassification process contains no provisions for protecting species that other parts of the Act seek to safeguard.
The Government's reply to criticism has not yet been as positive as many of us would like. The Government suggest that counties can and should use traffic regulation orders to limit access. But at £4,000 a go, and taking Hampshire as an example, that would mean that limiting access across the county could cost the county council £300,000.
Nor did a traffic regulation order save the Ridgeway in 1992. Objections to the traffic regulation order led to a public inquiry. At that inquiry the inspector dismissed the county's application.
The Government have said that road closures can be enforced by the highway authority under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980, either entirely or subject to the reservation of a footpath or bridleway along the route. The Government have said also that individuals or organisations can ask the highway authority to apply to magistrates for closure. But under section 117 of the Act, the cost of initiating the process has to be borne by the highway authority. All costs go to the individuals or organisations that goad the highway authority into action. That is a mightily effective deterrent.
Meanwhile the Department of the Environment word processors churn out a standard paragraph in reply to letters of concern. It states:
We have considered very carefully whether to propose changes in the law. However, there appears to be no consensus in favour of fundamental changes to the legislation. We have therefore decided against any such action at present.
I hope that the debate will help to bring about a change in the Department's thinking.
As for the remedy, there are many suggestions. Not all of them are mutually exclusive and I recommend them to my hon. Friend. Some people suggest that a legal distinction should be drawn between motorised and unmotorised vehicles, a distinction that already exists in our driving licence regime, and that discretionary suitability test powers should be returned to the counties. Others argue for a legal distinction not between motorised and unmotorised vehicles but between rights of way the surface of which can withstand use by motorised vehicles at all times and others which may need protection for some or all of the year.
The recently formed pressure group, the Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement—it is known as GLEAM—argues that motorised vehicles other than those requiring access to land or property should be banned from vulnerable byways unless allowed by a traffic enablement order, effectively the reverse of a traffic regulation order. It is further suggested that some traffic

enablement orders could be seasonal—for example, banning off-roaders between October and May when the ground is soft and easily damaged.
Yet another suggestion is that in the reclassification process only evidence of continuous use by motorised vehicles for at least 20 of the past 40 years should be considered relevant.
The problem can surely only intensify as time passes. There are ideas for a solution and the need for action is irrefutable. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the issue seriously. The preservation of our ancient green lanes demands that positive action is taken with the minimum further delay.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on securing time for a debate on a subject in which he has great interest. He may know that the Select Committee on the Environment has recently chosen to examine the environmental impact of leisure activities on the countryside. The Government are well aware of the level and nature of current concern about recreational vehicles, as witnessed by debates on the Environment Bill. I shall make some general points in the hope of overcoming some general misconceptions, as well as taking on board my hon. Friend's particular concerns.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend referred to the report on tourism and leisure produced by the Environment Select Committee, of which I have the privilege to be a member. He will be aware of the considerable amount of evidence that we have received on the subject, which states that the present law is not working. I do not wish him to prejudge the report, but will he give it careful consideration, and reflect on whether the present mechanism can be amended in any way?

Mr. Clappison: The Government will give careful consideration to that report before making their response in due course. I intend to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, that there are already appropriate means of addressing the matters that he has brought to my attention.
"Green lane" is a term of art rather than law. It is seen as covering all unsurfaced tracks in the countryside, although not all of those will be legally open to vehicles. Some will carry public rights only on foot, or on horseback, and others may be only private tracks. Some will already be recorded on definitive maps of rights of way; others may form part of the network of unclassified county roads in rural areas. Yet more may simply be shown as "white roads" on ordnance survey maps.
I am aware of concern, through correspondence and through the media, about damage to green lanes. My Department was involved in an important conference on the issue, organised by Hampshire county council as long ago as 1989. There was significant interest in that conference, but local authority members attending it confirmed that actual problems were isolated, although they could be severe where they occurred.
Subsequent surveys of highway authorities and users have looked further at the evidence. One of the most recent was carried out by Berkshire county council. I


believe that I am right in saying that it supported a view that has been presented to the Department of the Environment consistently over recent years: that most authorities are experiencing few problems of damage caused by recreational vehicles, and then only on particular routes. All the evidence suggests that incidents of damage are isolated and sporadic—although I acknowledge that where they do occur they can be serious, and expensive to repair. Furthermore, where damage occurred, recreational vehicles may not always be to blame; there is also evidence of damage by agricultural and other users.
Let me say a little about the procedures—about which we have heard tonight—for recording public rights of way on definitive maps. Definitive maps record public footpaths, which people can use on foot, and public bridleways, which people can use on foot and on horseback—and on bicycles. They also record byways open to all traffic, or BOATs, to which my hon. Friend has already referred. They are ways that the public have a right to use in vehicles, but which are mainly used by walkers and riders. They are most often unsurfaced tracks in the countryside, and many have historic origins—although they may originally have been surfaced for the vehicular traffic of the time, or may simply have lacked repair in recent years.
The duty to record BOATs arises principally from the decision made when definitive maps were introduced, in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, to include as roads used as public paths—the RUPPs also familiar to those versed in the subject—those ways which, while carrying public vehicular rights, were principally used as footpaths and bridleways, and hence should be brought to public attention. The term was misunderstood, however, largely because the Act and the accompanying instructions were perhaps not sufficiently clear about the ways that it was intended to record.
The Countryside Act 1968 therefore introduced provisions to address the problem; but, again, they were applied inconsistently and problems occurred. We reviewed the legislation radically in 1981 and, in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, introduced what I believe are now clear provisions. Those provisions require councils to review and reclassify all RUPPs to resolve legal uncertainty about the rights that the public have over them. We deliberately separated the ascertainment of rights—that is the term used in the Act—from a council's separate role of managing the use of such ways.
Even so, I recognise that the process of clarifying that legal uncertainty has not been easy. It involves careful evaluation of documentary evidence that is often conflicting. I believe, however, that the procedures that we have helped to develop for the consideration of objections deal with these complex matters in the fairest possible way. We have sought to make it clear that the purpose is to clarify rights that already exist, and that this is the issue that objections should address. The inspectors appointed by the planning inspectorate to decide opposed orders receive careful training. They are required to reach an impartial decision on each order, based on the evidence and representations. They are aware that the quality of documentary evidence will differ from case to case, and must be seen in the appropriate local context.
It has been argued that we should not now open up to modern vehicles ways that were dedicated for the use of carts and carriages. But it is a clear principle that the law

does not distinguish between the means of propulsion. The modern network of roads has evolved in part from the network that was laid down in previous centuries. Simply because rights have not been exercised does not mean that the public have lost those rights.
We also realise that recognising rights comprises only part of the responsibilities of the local highway authority. It is responsible for maintaining the way, and it also has a clear role in managing use and resolving conflict. These are becoming particularly important roles as the pressures for countryside access increase and diversify.
We know that many of the ways reclassified as byways that are open to all traffic have seen little use by modern vehicles—nor are they likely to. Some may sustain a level of occasional use, others require better maintenance for the normal traffic of the parish. A number of applications to show routes as BOATs come from parish councils. We are satisfied that highway authorities have the tools at their disposal to carry out their responsibilities and deal with any problems that might arise. In particular, we have consistently emphasised the availability of traffic regulation order powers to highway authorities to regulate and control vehicular use on rights of way. They are sufficiently flexible to impose restrictions at the time most damage is likely to occur, or to separate users at various times during the week, where the issue is one of conflict. They can regulate all vehicles, or can distinguish between them. They do not inhibit essential access.
The first principle of effective management is to seek the co-operation of all those involved—and in this case, it will involve those organisations representing recreational vehicle users as well as landowners, local people and other users. While regulation is the backstop, negotiation can often provide a solution that all can accept. Organisations such as the motoring organisations' Land Access and Recreation Association have shown themselves prepared to accept voluntary restraints on use, and to persuade others to do so, and to publicise codes of conduct that take account of the needs of others and of the environment.
It would be wrong to paint too rosy a picture. There are problems. There are perceived difficulties among local authorities, for example, in seeking to impose traffic regulation in the countryside. Orders are seen as contentious and difficult to process and enforce. The Department of Transport has been looking at the procedures to see if they can be made simpler, and will be consulting shortly on revisions to the regulations. But we also need to ensure that authorities are made more aware that the powers can be used not just to regulate traffic in towns, but to improve amenity in the countryside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned environmental damage to the Ridgeway. I understand that in that case the Secretary of State for Transport decided not to make the traffic regulation order for very specific reasons. The problems on the Ridgeway are not solely related to recreational vehicles. The Secretary of State placed great emphasis on alternative voluntary means of reducing conflict. The Countryside Commission has taken account of a wide range of views in formulating a management plan, which will also be of use to other authorities in resolving conflict on byways in similar circumstances.
Ministers in the Department of the Environment have been aware for some time of the growing wealth of experience among highway authorities in dealing with conflicts on rights of way. A number are developing sensitive techniques in maintaining unsurfaced tracks in a good condition for all users. Others have developed constructive dialogues with user groups, or have successfully used traffic regulation orders in particular circumstances.
We have therefore asked officials to undertake the preparation of a best practice guide to managing the use of rights of way by vehicles. This will draw on the experiences of local authorities, users and landowners, and publicise practical solutions for resolving difficulties. It will also include an assessment of the process of reclassification so that we can help ensure that the procedures work more smoothly. I believe that that will be an important step forward.
I am, nevertheless, aware of a groundswell of opinion that the legislation is inadequate, that we need to accommodate a test of suitability for every road used as a public path and that we need to provide a new class of highway from which mechanised vehicles are excluded or to impose an automatic weight limit on vehicles using BOATs. Some of the proposals are superficially attractive, but I do not believe that they are at present appropriate

or necessary. I have described some of the powers and techniques already available at the local level—powers and techniques that have been used in Hampshire. I do not believe, on the evidence available, that it is possible to justify fundamental changes to the legislation. Nor do I believe, on the evidence, that authorities would welcome such fundamental changes. They are generally working constructively towards the millennium target of getting the whole of the rights of way network in good order by the year 2000 and this includes the vital task of bringing definitive maps up to date.
I shall be quite clear, however. I do not believe that authorities should tolerate the attitude of users whose enjoyment on public rights of way comes from making as much noise and mess as they can. Ancient highways are there to be enjoyed and they can be enjoyed by a wide range of users. They do not exist simply to be destroyed by thoughtlessness and intemperate use should not affect others' enjoyment. The place for that kind of excitement is not the public highway, but the purpose-built course.
Although I am not at present persuaded that further legislation is justified, I hope that I have assured my hon. Friend that we are working hard to improve procedures and to provide a measure of clarity in a complex and difficult area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.